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!!

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.

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!

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

So you're an Aussie then nairda ?.
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.

I make no attempt to assess value.

frog i thought you were a certain well known comedian on here, you little tinker

Viva el Presidente ( aka I don't do value ) ?

if I hung around waiting for value I'd end up doing sod all on here.

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.

* at the price of 2 or greater IP.

ffs

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...

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.

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.

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.

Actually that's a lie, I'm sure I joined BF a little earlier, but certainly in the same couple of months span anyway.

(- although the *2 is misleading to most people)

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.