General Betting
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
read that it's calculated different...how?
Show More
aiui:
bf double the backer's stake and call that the amount matched. so £2 at 99/1 counts as £4 matched.
the quack I think count the total liability of both parties as the total matched. so the same bet would count as £101 matched.
it's something like that - and the essence is it inflates the seeming liquidity when people back at long odds. but someone'll be along with the right answer in a minute, because there's nothing brings people out on here like a wrong answer.
bf double the backer's stake and call that the amount matched. so £2 at 99/1 counts as £4 matched.
the quack I think count the total liability of both parties as the total matched. so the same bet would count as £101 matched.
it's something like that - and the essence is it inflates the seeming liquidity when people back at long odds. but someone'll be along with the right answer in a minute, because there's nothing brings people out on here like a wrong answer.
i think betduck is the right way...both liability should be total
I can see arguments both ways, tbh. but it would be handy if they used the same system.
What's matter which way it's done ?.
It's just a measure.
Doesn't change whether you get a bet on or not ?.
It's just a measure.
Doesn't change whether you get a bet on or not ?.
yes it a measure....but if you bet 20k at 1.01 it come up as 40k matched on betfair
I was under the impression that BF's was just the backers stake (not double as stated above). If you look at a Market Information table, the matched figure correspond just to the single stake, and the sum of the matched figures for each runner/team give the overall matched figure on the front odds page. Looking at Quack tables seems to be sum of liabilities.
Find a quiet market and place a minimum stake bet in your currency and see what happens with the total matched amount. Let us know the outcome (it will not longer be an impression)
yes,that bit I'm confident about.
eg, I've just laid a £5 bet in the taylor correct score market and it's showing as £10.
eg, I've just laid a £5 bet in the taylor correct score market and it's showing as £10.
betfair 10quid at 100 to 1 = 20 matched
purple one 10quid at 100 to =1000 matched
purple one 10quid at 100 to =1000 matched
viva el presidente! 21 Jul 11 20:51
bf double the backer's stake and call that the amount matched. so £2 at 99/1 counts as £4 matched.
the quack I think count the total liability of both parties as the total matched. so the same bet would count as £101 matched.
it's something like that - and the essence is it inflates the seeming liquidity when people back at long odds. but someone'll be along with the right answer in a minute, because there's nothing brings people out on here like a wrong answer.
I'll bite viva, as there is nothing I like responding to more than, what I perceive to be, a factually incorrect answer ;)
I believe that £2 at 99/1 (price 100) on bdq would actually be displayed as £200 matched at that price in the betting history section. I believe that £2 matched at the price 99 would be displayed as £198.
On bq, in the betting history section, I believe that the displayed matched amount at each price equals the price multiplied by the amount placed at that price by backers (to the nearest whole £1). This, as you stated but didn't apply correctly to your example, is in effect the total liability of both parties.
bf double the backer's stake and call that the amount matched. so £2 at 99/1 counts as £4 matched.
the quack I think count the total liability of both parties as the total matched. so the same bet would count as £101 matched.
it's something like that - and the essence is it inflates the seeming liquidity when people back at long odds. but someone'll be along with the right answer in a minute, because there's nothing brings people out on here like a wrong answer.
I'll bite viva, as there is nothing I like responding to more than, what I perceive to be, a factually incorrect answer ;)
I believe that £2 at 99/1 (price 100) on bdq would actually be displayed as £200 matched at that price in the betting history section. I believe that £2 matched at the price 99 would be displayed as £198.
On bq, in the betting history section, I believe that the displayed matched amount at each price equals the price multiplied by the amount placed at that price by backers (to the nearest whole £1). This, as you stated but didn't apply correctly to your example, is in effect the total liability of both parties.
well done corporal jones. I was wondering who'd be the first to spot that. 
betfair is just the stake x 2....so 1.01 bet for $10 is $20 matched betduck is $11 matched
as more bets are matched on the fav in a 2 horse race, then i believe betfair matched is wrong
as more bets are matched on the fav in a 2 horse race, then i believe betfair matched is wrong
Betfair: Total Matched = 2 * Backers Stake
DaQuack: Total Matched = Backers Stake + Layers Liability
this could be worked out as Backers Stake + (Stake * (Odds -1)
which is also equal to Backers Stake * Backers Odds (much simpler)
DaQuack: Total Matched = Backers Stake + Layers Liability
this could be worked out as Backers Stake + (Stake * (Odds -1)
which is also equal to Backers Stake * Backers Odds (much simpler)
At least you can manage to get your emoticons to work correctly Viva!
One of my concerns about the betting history on bq, using the standard web interface, is that there doesn't appear to be any way of calculating the total amount placed on each selection in popular markets. The bdq betting history section only appears to display the last 10 prices matched on each selection. Whilst, in some markets, you can obtain previous matched prices through their link to b**tbetting this doesn't appear to provide any means of calculating the amount matched at those prices.
One of my concerns about the betting history on bq, using the standard web interface, is that there doesn't appear to be any way of calculating the total amount placed on each selection in popular markets. The bdq betting history section only appears to display the last 10 prices matched on each selection. Whilst, in some markets, you can obtain previous matched prices through their link to b**tbetting this doesn't appear to provide any means of calculating the amount matched at those prices.
Well they say that real gamblers will bet on 2 flys on a wall.
And so I suppose real forumites will debate on 2 liquidity measuring formats.
At least the former has the potential to be exciting and interesting.
I know, I know.
Don't fckin read it, if you don't like it.
And so I suppose real forumites will debate on 2 liquidity measuring formats.
At least the former has the potential to be exciting and interesting.
I know, I know.
Don't fckin read it, if you don't like it.
yes...betduq is the right way to do it Liability + Liability
Ah I see jt45, it's all about trading on momentum indicators.
My apologies then.
Not my bag obviously.
My apologies then.
Not my bag obviously.
I just don't like that a two quid bet on a 499/1 no hoper creates the same impression of liquidity as 5 £100 bets at evens.
BF's method is better, imo.
BF's method is better, imo.
What's your angle/interest in all this Viva.
Are you some form of momentum trader ?
What do liquidity impressions even mean or matter ?.
Are you some form of momentum trader ?
What do liquidity impressions even mean or matter ?.
not really a momentum trader. but if there's one thing that kills you it's lack of liquidity.
most of the times I lose it's when I get stuck in a market it turns out no one's interested in.
exhibit a: superbikes.
most of the times I lose it's when I get stuck in a market it turns out no one's interested in.
exhibit a: superbikes.
Yeah but the real point is that liquidity to you means the ability to get matched ?.
Not some theoretical measure of what volume of trades has been done at what prices at what time.
Not some theoretical measure of what volume of trades has been done at what prices at what time.
but it work the other way to Viva...1.01 bet at a stake of $10 come up as a matched bet of $20 on betfair....
yes, I'm talking about liquidity in two linked senses: activity in a market and availability of money on both sides of the spread at prices that aren't a joke.
viva el presidente!
21 Jul 11 22:45
Joined:
10 Jun 06
| Topic/replies: 8,762 | Blogger: viva el presidente!'s blog
I just don't like that a two quid bet on a 499/1 no hoper creates the same impression of liquidity as 5 £100 bets at evens.
BF's method is better, imo.
Betfair:
£2 @ 500
£100 @ 2
£100 @ 2
£100 @ 2
£100 @ 2
£100 @ 2
Total Matched = £1004
DaQuack:
£2 @ 500
£100 @ 2
£100 @ 2
£100 @ 2
£100 @ 2
£100 @ 2
Total Matched = £2000
So does liability count as matched money or not?
The layer that matched the backer on Betfair (£2 @ 500) would be paying out more than £4 if the backer were successful?
DaQuacks method is superior IMHO.
21 Jul 11 22:45
Joined:
10 Jun 06
| Topic/replies: 8,762 | Blogger: viva el presidente!'s blog
I just don't like that a two quid bet on a 499/1 no hoper creates the same impression of liquidity as 5 £100 bets at evens.
BF's method is better, imo.
Betfair:
£2 @ 500
£100 @ 2
£100 @ 2
£100 @ 2
£100 @ 2
£100 @ 2
Total Matched = £1004
DaQuack:
£2 @ 500
£100 @ 2
£100 @ 2
£100 @ 2
£100 @ 2
£100 @ 2
Total Matched = £2000
So does liability count as matched money or not?
The layer that matched the backer on Betfair (£2 @ 500) would be paying out more than £4 if the backer were successful?
DaQuacks method is superior IMHO.
I don't see that tbh.
in any case, I find it easier tomake a judgment about market activity under the bf system.
in any case, I find it easier tomake a judgment about market activity under the bf system.
that was @nairda.
the problem with your example, eyg, is that one 2 quid back at 500 quid is basically as near to zero market activity as you can get, the same as 2 quid at 2.0 is. but under the betquack system you end up with massively different numbers, which you can't interpret and act on with confidence.
the problem with your example, eyg, is that one 2 quid back at 500 quid is basically as near to zero market activity as you can get, the same as 2 quid at 2.0 is. but under the betquack system you end up with massively different numbers, which you can't interpret and act on with confidence.
the matched total that you see in a market on betfair is the sum of the layers and the backers stake
example, £10 on x price matched will then add £20 to the total matched amount figure, £10 from each opposing party.
you dont have to take my word for it as people point out I have only joined recently so I wont know much.
example, £10 on x price matched will then add £20 to the total matched amount figure, £10 from each opposing party.
you dont have to take my word for it as people point out I have only joined recently so I wont know much.
but again...most bet on a 2 horse race, most of the betting is matched on the fav ....
yes, nairda, but... so what?
2 quid matched at 1.01 may show 4 quid matched when only £2.02's really at stake, but that's much less misleading as a guide to market "activeness" than 2 quid showing as £2000 matched.
5 gets you 10 betquack chose that system to make their matched totals look more competitive with BF's than they really are.
2 quid matched at 1.01 may show 4 quid matched when only £2.02's really at stake, but that's much less misleading as a guide to market "activeness" than 2 quid showing as £2000 matched.
5 gets you 10 betquack chose that system to make their matched totals look more competitive with BF's than they really are.
anyone seen that new exchange b e t t o r .com , its social bettting an exchange, very small at the moment but it looks good
V.E.P - On here no matter what odds you get matched at, the total matched is always going to be double no matter what stakes you get matched at, wether it be 1000 or 1.01, which means the total matched does not take into account the liability. I understand the point that you are making though, it is just a different way of looking at things, I bet there are still people on here with their odds set to fractional!!
much more bets is matched at odds on then over 2.00..
and there zero logic in giving $2 matched at 499/1 and $2 matched at 1.01 as the same
if im laying 499/1 on...im f-cking betting $499..not $1
and there zero logic in giving $2 matched at 499/1 and $2 matched at 1.01 as the same
if im laying 499/1 on...im f-cking betting $499..not $1
nairda,
On average the bq method of calculating matched amounts grossly inflates the total matched figure in comparison to the method bf uses.
Consider the example of a 4 horse race in which each of the four horses are regarded as having an equal probability of winning and all are, somewhat unlikely, available to back at 4 on each site. £1000 placed on each horse on bf would generate a total matched figure of £8000. On bq, a £1000 placed on each horse would generate a total matched figure of £16000, twice as much.
Consider the example of a 4 horse race in which 3 of the horse are considered to have an equal probability of winning and are available to back at the price of 3 with the rag available at 1000. £1000 placed on each runner on bf would generate a total matched figure of £8000. £1000 placed on each runner on bq would generate a total matched figure of £1009000.
Even using your example of a two outcome market with a heavy odds on favourite, under some circumstances the bq method of calculating the matched amount could lead to a greater displayed total matched figure than bf's method. For example, consider the case where the favourite outcome is available to lay at 1.01 and the other outcome can be backed at 200. Every £10 placed on the outsider at bq at this price will increase the total matched figure by £2000 in comparison to £20 on bf.
You may argue that it's unlikely that significant amounts would be matched on the rags in examples 2 and 3 above but the point is not much needs to be matched to massively increase the total matched figure.
On average the bq method of calculating matched amounts grossly inflates the total matched figure in comparison to the method bf uses.
Consider the example of a 4 horse race in which each of the four horses are regarded as having an equal probability of winning and all are, somewhat unlikely, available to back at 4 on each site. £1000 placed on each horse on bf would generate a total matched figure of £8000. On bq, a £1000 placed on each horse would generate a total matched figure of £16000, twice as much.
Consider the example of a 4 horse race in which 3 of the horse are considered to have an equal probability of winning and are available to back at the price of 3 with the rag available at 1000. £1000 placed on each runner on bf would generate a total matched figure of £8000. £1000 placed on each runner on bq would generate a total matched figure of £1009000.
Even using your example of a two outcome market with a heavy odds on favourite, under some circumstances the bq method of calculating the matched amount could lead to a greater displayed total matched figure than bf's method. For example, consider the case where the favourite outcome is available to lay at 1.01 and the other outcome can be backed at 200. Every £10 placed on the outsider at bq at this price will increase the total matched figure by £2000 in comparison to £20 on bf.
You may argue that it's unlikely that significant amounts would be matched on the rags in examples 2 and 3 above but the point is not much needs to be matched to massively increase the total matched figure.
exactly, jt.
for me it's about being able to judge a market's activeness, and BF's system is just much better for that.
for me it's about being able to judge a market's activeness, and BF's system is just much better for that.
the over inflated betquack matched figure shows that there liquidity is a long way off betfairs
and more proof that betfair is still the first choice of even the big winners!
and more proof that betfair is still the first choice of even the big winners!
Just leave it fananatic.
Not relevant to the thread.
Not relevant to the thread.
this is true...horse racing or any other muilt event field where runners are above 2.00 ...but not in head to head or 3 way betting where most bets/lay are matched on the fav (under 2.00)
again, betduck way....it doesn't matter where the bet is matched (99% of bets/lay matched on fav or 99% bet/lay on underdog) it still come up with the same Total matched amount...this is not the case with betfair, where the bets are matched changes the amount matched
again, betduck way....it doesn't matter where the bet is matched (99% of bets/lay matched on fav or 99% bet/lay on underdog) it still come up with the same Total matched amount...this is not the case with betfair, where the bets are matched changes the amount matched
AFL " ST kIlda vs Adelaide
total matched betfair $72,467
St Kilda $5,929
Adelaide $66,539
but under betduck it be $59,793
St Kilda $21,261
Adelaide $38,532
as more bets are matched on fav
total matched betfair $72,467
St Kilda $5,929
Adelaide $66,539
but under betduck it be $59,793
St Kilda $21,261
Adelaide $38,532
as more bets are matched on fav
So you're an Aussie then nairda ?.
Most poms would have no idea how Aussie rules is even played, let alone bet on it.
Most poms would have no idea how Aussie rules is even played, let alone bet on it.
I do aussie rules. and i love it.
never been within 12,000 miles of an afl game though.
never been within 12,000 miles of an afl game though.
How do you assess value if you can't assess form in the sense of understanding all the subtleties of the game ?.
Btw I hate aussie rules. A sissy game played by grown men in 1960s disco shorts ( not my line, a certain well known comedian said it).
frog i thought you were a certain well known comedian on here, you little tinker
Most fail to find me funny I'm sad to say.
I am most unappreciated in the main.
Just a cross I have to bear.
I am most unappreciated in the main.
Just a cross I have to bear.
Nairda,
There are some markets where extrapolating the matched figures on each selection from bf and converting them, using bq's method of calculating the total matched amount, would create a lower equivalent matched amount on bq.
I'm very confident that there are a far higher number of markets where extrapolating the matched figures on each selection from bf and converting them, using bq's method of calculation, would create a higher (inflated) equivalent matched amount on bq.
The latter would include almost every pre-off market with more than two outcomes in which no selection traded at odds on and bets were matched. I believe that it would also include the majority of markets in which a selection did trade odds on.
There are some markets where extrapolating the matched figures on each selection from bf and converting them, using bq's method of calculating the total matched amount, would create a lower equivalent matched amount on bq.
I'm very confident that there are a far higher number of markets where extrapolating the matched figures on each selection from bf and converting them, using bq's method of calculation, would create a higher (inflated) equivalent matched amount on bq.
The latter would include almost every pre-off market with more than two outcomes in which no selection traded at odds on and bets were matched. I believe that it would also include the majority of markets in which a selection did trade odds on.
if I hung around waiting for value I'd end up doing sod all on here.
jt45
i belive this be the case for horse race...but not inplay
betduck method always leads to same total matched no matter which selection back/lay trade on, where as betfair, total matched could change depending on which selection is back/lay
i belive this be the case for horse race...but not inplay
betduck method always leads to same total matched no matter which selection back/lay trade on, where as betfair, total matched could change depending on which selection is back/lay
I suspect that even in-play, the calculated matched amount on bqq would be greater than on bf based on the same volume of bets placed in most horse races. Consider the amount traded on multiple horses at the price of 10 or greater IP. These bets, particularly at the high prices of 100+, could easily increase the matched total on bdq by an amount greater than the difference 'lost' from the amount traded on horses at odds on.
I agree that, unlike on bf, the bdq method of calculating the total amount matched always leads to the same total regardless of whether you, for example, back outcome A for 1000 at 1.5 or lay £500 on outcome B at 3 in a two outcome market.
As I suggested earlier, I'm not convinced that is of much use as it doesn't seem to be possible to obtain a complete history of every price traded and the amount matched at that price on each selection beyond the last 10 prices using the standard bdq web interface. On bf it's normally possible to obtain the amount matched at each price on every selection.
I agree that, unlike on bf, the bdq method of calculating the total amount matched always leads to the same total regardless of whether you, for example, back outcome A for 1000 at 1.5 or lay £500 on outcome B at 3 in a two outcome market.
As I suggested earlier, I'm not convinced that is of much use as it doesn't seem to be possible to obtain a complete history of every price traded and the amount matched at that price on each selection beyond the last 10 prices using the standard bdq web interface. On bf it's normally possible to obtain the amount matched at each price on every selection.
i don't bet inplay horsse racing...so had for me to say how many 10/1 are matched...but inplay sports, most of the bet/lay matched bets happens on the fav
Bottom line, how they calculate matched amounts shouldn't matter, only real liquidity is what matter, but there's no doubt in my mind that duck chose their way of doing it to inflate matched amount numbers.
Duck's way of doing it will never come up less than half of what show's here even if all money is matched @ 1.01
But on almost every multiple runners market mathed amounts on Duck's will be hugely inflated compared to here.
For someone like me who mainly bet on golf with up to 156 runners , it's impossible to compare the numbers and Duck' way of doing it is actually one of the things that puts me off going there.
I think they are cowards doing it their way and that they should change it to Betfair's way if they aspire to become a real competitor...
Duck's way of doing it will never come up less than half of what show's here even if all money is matched @ 1.01
But on almost every multiple runners market mathed amounts on Duck's will be hugely inflated compared to here.
For someone like me who mainly bet on golf with up to 156 runners , it's impossible to compare the numbers and Duck' way of doing it is actually one of the things that puts me off going there.
I think they are cowards doing it their way and that they should change it to Betfair's way if they aspire to become a real competitor...
Golf is a great example as last week on the Open it would have looked like the Duck was flying like a Dustin Johnson drive, when in fact it was stuck in Bjorn's bunker.
I'd prefer them to list both numbers Eddie. I agree with you they should show a comparable measure, but I do think their way is more representative of the action taking place.
Not sure about that one Vis, they were very competetive throughout on the open.
I'm sure they were and this is just a theory but I reckon their matched figures looked great because of the way they calculate them to anybody who was comparing BF and didn't realise it wasn't like for like on the numbers.
Their matched figures on golf are massively inflated compared to betfairs, no mistake there. I know of several people who traded both sites though, and there wasn't a great deal in it to bet on.
Lori, I want any exchange to be as simple as possible, showing more different matched amounts based on different ways of calculating it would complicate things a little more.
The first thing that sprung to my mind when first finding out how they calculated it over there was - Cowards, if you want to compete with the best you have to do it on their terms.
You know that plenty of the matched money on golf is placed on golfers trading at 50 and well above. Looking at matched amounts on Duck will not give you any impression on what real liquidity is like.
The first thing that sprung to my mind when first finding out how they calculated it over there was - Cowards, if you want to compete with the best you have to do it on their terms.
You know that plenty of the matched money on golf is placed on golfers trading at 50 and well above. Looking at matched amounts on Duck will not give you any impression on what real liquidity is like.
I don't think it's a coward thing though, though I agree with the rest of the points.
They've been doing it that way since I've been there and I think I joined both sites on the same day.
They've been doing it that way since I've been there and I think I joined both sites on the same day.
Actually that's a lie, I'm sure I joined BF a little earlier, but certainly in the same couple of months span anyway.
My tuppence (or 20 pounds @ 1000.0) worth : BFs method of calculating makes a LOT more sense, BD just chose a way to make their numbers bigger.
I'm not disagreeing they may have chosen a way to make numbers bigger, I just wonder how Betfair's makes more sense
If someone bets 100 @ 1.01 it comes up as 200, if someone bets 2 @ 100 it comes up as 4
Given that it's basically the same thing, shouldn't the numbers be similar? (That's not arguing with Eddie's point that if the Daq wants to show to be competing then copying Betfair might be more in their interests)
If someone bets 100 @ 1.01 it comes up as 200, if someone bets 2 @ 100 it comes up as 4
Given that it's basically the same thing, shouldn't the numbers be similar? (That's not arguing with Eddie's point that if the Daq wants to show to be competing then copying Betfair might be more in their interests)
It's not the same thing from the betters point of view as in case 1 they are prepared to throw £100 at it (implies bigger amd more liquid market) in case 2 it's just 2 quid. What are you learnign about liquidity from that? When you look at traded you're interesting in the liquidity, not how much people are winning.
A 1000 matched @1.01 shows up as 1010 matched over there. swings an roundabouts imo.
* unless there are more then 2 runners, then it is defo inflated compared to betfair!
I think theirs is the truer figure as it is an exact value for customers' exposure, not a derived figure which ignores the odds.
Just Checking Joined: 25 Jun 06
Replies: 7249 22 Jul 11 13:15
It's not the same thing from the betters point of view as in case 1 they are prepared to throw £100 at it (implies bigger amd more liquid market) in case 2 it's just 2 quid. What are you learnign about liquidity from that? When you look at traded you're interesting in the liquidity, not how much people are winning.
Surely if someone bets 2@100s, one person puts up £2 and one puts up £198, the same as if someone bets 200@1.01 (roughly)
The only thing that is different is the line it was backed on, which is basically an imaginary construct anyway.
I might be missing something here, but surely it's not relevant to the market liquidity whether you bet Federer at 1.01 or lay the other guy at 100s?
Replies: 7249 22 Jul 11 13:15
It's not the same thing from the betters point of view as in case 1 they are prepared to throw £100 at it (implies bigger amd more liquid market) in case 2 it's just 2 quid. What are you learnign about liquidity from that? When you look at traded you're interesting in the liquidity, not how much people are winning.
Surely if someone bets 2@100s, one person puts up £2 and one puts up £198, the same as if someone bets 200@1.01 (roughly)
The only thing that is different is the line it was backed on, which is basically an imaginary construct anyway.
I might be missing something here, but surely it's not relevant to the market liquidity whether you bet Federer at 1.01 or lay the other guy at 100s?
winningthought
* unless there are more then 2 runners, then it is defo inflated compared to betfair!
this is right ...betfair matched total that is inflated in head to head , and it inflated big time in-play
event like golf and horse raccing, then it betduck that inflated
but it only betduck that has the same total matched every time...
* unless there are more then 2 runners, then it is defo inflated compared to betfair!
this is right ...betfair matched total that is inflated in head to head , and it inflated big time in-play
event like golf and horse raccing, then it betduck that inflated
but it only betduck that has the same total matched every time...
even in a two horse race betquack's numbers can look massively inflated - if one of the runners is fairly long odds.
again, bottom line for me is, I want to know how active a market is, not how big a liability someone else has got on their book.
again, bottom line for me is, I want to know how active a market is, not how big a liability someone else has got on their book.
Indeed viva. I know what you guys are saying but to me anyway it depends on perspective of layer vs bettor. Cross matching messes it up a bit but I'd think the actual matching mostly comes from betting that takes lays not vice versa and it's how much being staked as bets that's the better measure of how much is happening. BF measures the bettors stakes, BD by sounds of things measures the winnings, which is more the layed stakes.
Also once there's any big change in the odds betfair still keeps a measure of the money being thrown at the market. BD .. would you not need to then cross reference the historical odds on a market to get a meaningful figure? I'm not sure what numbers you guys are looking at anyway, only figure I can see on BD is the total market matched figure, not per 'line'?
Also once there's any big change in the odds betfair still keeps a measure of the money being thrown at the market. BD .. would you not need to then cross reference the historical odds on a market to get a meaningful figure? I'm not sure what numbers you guys are looking at anyway, only figure I can see on BD is the total market matched figure, not per 'line'?
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539