A way to increase liquidity......

Your case is fair but there would also be another case other way round that would not be fair. Lets say at 1.4 there is money waiting to be matched on the back side and there is a cap between the money and on the lay side first price available is at 1.36. Lets assume it is a tennis game inplay market. Now punter A wants to take that 1.4 and enters a bet so clock starts counting 5 seconds. The very next second favourite gets a point and if it is a break price could fall to 1.22. Now punter B sees that on TV and quickly enters his money at 1.39 back side. In your scenario he does not have a count down and his money will show up instantly. Punter A gets screwd anyway but now market maker at 1.4 gets screwed also and winner is still punter B (read courtsider). So if anything your idea will make things worse for market makers and punters and better for court siders.

llama1,


My interpretation of tier's example, is that it is not Punter A but the person who originally placed the unmatched bet at 1.4 (available to lay) that is being described as the 'Market-Maker'. Punter A is simply attempting to match that bet.

Tier appears to suggest that the Market-Maker would be disadvantaged by your idea as he would miss out on Punter A's badly timed lay, of some or all, of his unmatched bet. This would occur as, under your suggestion given the market status, fast feed player Punter B would be able to instantly place an unmatched back (available to lay) at the lower price of 1.39. Punter A's bet would be matched against Punter B's bet when Punter A's bet hit the market after the bet placement delay on Punter A's bet.

Presume that your suggestion is in operation and that the only 3 customers initially active in the market described by Tier, are the Market-Maker, Punter A and Punter B:

00:00:00- The Market-Maker Backs the given tennis player at 1.4 (unmatched available to lay). He may also have Laid the given player at 1.36 and 1.22(unmatched available to back) but that's largely irrelevant, other than to note that there is a gap in the market between the lead prices on each side. Market Status:

		Back	Lay
	1.22	1.36	1.4
	£5000	£1200	£1500

00:00:01 - Punter A places a Lay of £1000 on the given tennis player at 1.4. As his bet would match against prices in the market as they stand, it would be subject to the bet placement delay (presume to be 5 seconds).

00:00:02 - The given tennis player wins a crucial point which means that the correct price on him to win the match is now 1.225. Punter B, who utilises a fast feed, observes this and instantly submits a Back bet of £2000 at the price of 1.39 on the given player. As his bet would not be matched against the current market prices as they stand, it would not be subject to any bet placement delay. Market Status:

		Back	Lay
	1.22	1.36	1.39	1.4
	£5000	£1200	£2000	£1500

00:00:06 - Punter A's Lay of the given player of £1000 at 1.4 hits the market and is matched against Punter B's instantly submitted unmatched Back bet on that player at 1.39. If Punter B had not been able to submit his bet instantly, Punter A's bet would have instead been matched against the Market-Maker's unmatched bet at 1.4. I've presumed that the layer of the given tennis player at 1.36 had the good sense to cancel his bet below. Market Status:

		Back	Lay
		1.22	1.39	1.4
		£5000	£1000	£1500

00:00:07 - Market fully reforms. Market Status:

		Back	Lay
		1.22	1.23
		£5000	£5000

Your suggestion, or something very similar, appears to have been in operation for quite some time in most IR markets on a fairly well known exchange in purple colours. I would presume that is because it is perceived to be of benefit to the major market makers, or those that otherwise seed the markets, on that site. I would suggest that if bf and the major market-makers on this site perceived that it was in their interests, your suggestion would have very probably been introduced already.

Whilst both systems have there positives and negatives, on balance I, from the perspective of a low to moderate staking selective price-taker for the most part, prefer the IR bet placement system that is currently in operation on bf.

Boil it down, lads.

Root Problem = When placing a bet, you have to wait 8 seconds for it to hit the market before you can cancel it.

Solution = Allow users to cancel a bet after placement, but before the 8 seconds has elapsed and it has hit the market.

Not everything has to be complicated.

Disclaimer - I develop computer systems for a living, but there is bound to be more than 1 way to skin this cat. I'm just applying the KISS principle.

Hi llama1,

If you're suggestion was introduced, it's possible that a "Professional Sniper" may submit bets near simultaneously at both 1.23 and 1.39 in the above scenario. The bet at 1.23 being subject to the bet placement delay as you observed.

If he perceived that he had access to the fastest available information as to live events, and his bets were regularly hitting the market first, the sniper would doubtless prioritise the bet at 1.23. However, unless there was a difficulty in doing so, I can see little reason for him not to also submit a bet at between 1.37 and 1.39 inclusive. 

People with access to slightly slower information may not regard it as worthwhile to submit a bet at 1.23 given the low probability of their bet hitting the market first. They may regard it as worthwhile to submit a bet at 1.39.

As unmatched available to back bets on the player who won the point are cancelled, it's possible that people with significantly slower feeds, within the bet placement delay of live events, could also exploit the same flaw. In that situation they would be under-cutting both the original market-maker and those mentioned above.



Freelance,

I presume that you are joking but just in case...

If people were able to cancel submitted bets during the bet placement delay before those bets hit the market, the bet placement delay would be rendered absolutely useless at protecting those with bets in the market. The management of any football markets would also become pointless:

1) Submit a bet on Over X goals every second at a price a number of ticks below the current market price.
2) If there is no goal cancel each of those bets around 7 seconds into the 8 second bet placement delay.
3) If there is a goal do not cancel the bet(s).
4) Congratulations you've been matched at a price that represents excellent value.
5) Market is suspended.

Nobody on this thread had previously suggested that you should be able to cancel submitted bets during the bet placement delay before they hit the market. In the highly unlikely event that such a policy was introduced, very few customers would leave unmatched bets in IR markets at anything resembling the correct price on many outcomes.

Whilst it would be easy to detect persistent activity of that nature, I'm not convinced that it would be easy to counter.

Regardless, the current market-maker advantages would be greatly eroded. I believe that the volume traded IR would decrease as a result.