Poor market depths and allowed bot use.

bots certainly make many people just take their money down. whats the point when some bot just puts £2 in front of you every time? so annoying when often they dont even want to have a bet, or force the market up or down, just put a pointless £2 there for apparently no reason at all.

Bots are part of the reason ****'s never took off. Put a bet up and their own in house bot jumps you with a large amount.

betda q

Bots jumping in front with £2 ain't a problem. If someone wants to take money available they're going to just swallow the £2 and take the next part of the queue.

They are a problem when it's a market £2 punters frequently bet on and the bot keeps replenishing.  I don't bother seeding a lot of markets any more because of them (not just £2 bots, but any bot with a relatively small amount).  Nobody seeds the market and it's dead until an hour or two before an event starts.

It seems as I always thought-betfair are the ones using the bots then,
all makes sense now...

Usual nonsense from incompetent punters.I have no problems getting the prices I want betting in most horse races every day.Betfair is the greatest thing since sliced bread for the serious punter.

artie • October 9, 2013 5:01 AM BST
Betfair is the greatest thing since sliced bread for the serious punter.

Even when they help themselves to half your profit each week? Get real. This place is a shadow of what it was.

If bots were banned the markets would be much deader (if there are degrees of dead, which there might be if you believe the works of George Romero) than they are now. That's a given. And trying to "ban" some bets and not others would be a complete nightmare.

So, well that's reality, deal with it as you will.

PS the lack of liqudity on the exchange isn't due to bots it's for other reasons discussed to death on this forum, and in large part BF's own making.

Judging by the current activity bots are taking up a larger share of the market and making things tick over as BF has pushed all the new/small punters onto its sportsbook. I don't like it that way either but that's your problem. Banning bots wouldn't bring the putners back, it would just make the markets dead.

Share price in an nose dive.I called £11 the top so pat on the back fro me.I expect Betfair to be a faint shadow of it's former self  within 5 years.

I am sure the bots aren't simply jumnping in front, otherwise you could simply pick your price and take their money.  I am sure if there are automated betting programs, they are set to ridiculous percentages, so instead of being a fcuking tight ass, put your bet at a decent price and you won't have these bots jumping above you.

Templeton Peck


They are a problem when it's a market £2 punters frequently bet on and the bot keeps replenishing.  I don't bother seeding a lot of markets any more because of them (not just £2 bots, but any bot with a relatively small amount).  Nobody seeds the market and it's dead until an hour or two before an event starts.

-------

spot on.

If someone is jumping ahead of you with a £2 bet at better odds, it's because your offered odds weren't generous enough.

Stop complaining about being unable to take mug money at poor odds!

Check out how annoying the bot is for the Shanghai Masters doubles match between Murray/Peers and Marrero/Verdasco. It offers odds of 1.71 and 1.71 and then keeps jumping you with £31 so no one else puts any money up. Kills the betting market so nothing gets matched.

Well, offer 1.72 or better then. Duh!

Yes but it's a bot and just jumps you. Duh!

That market is completely even odds in effect as nobody has a clue what to do.  If that's the sort of market you are on about, jeeze.
This is the money waiting to be matched on marerro, for those that can't be bothered looking:   
1.63     £2           
1.64     £2           
1.71     £31           
1.72     £4           
2.90           £2     
2.92           £2     
2.94           £2    
Are you basically annoyed that in markets with virtually nothing in them and massive gaps between lay and back, you can't be the one who gives the odds that people desperate to place a bet will take, and feel a bot trying same game is cheating???

I can assure you if I was a punter looking at that market, the lack of money is the issue, not the fact a % of the pitance in the market might be a bot.

I have to disagree. If anyone puts any money up the bot jumps the offer so the person who placed their bet cancels it and the bot goes back to offering 1.71 and 1.71.

That £4 bot that does the whole site has jumped the other bot so the only money in that market is 2 bots and nothing is going to get matched as a result.

On the other doubles match between Bryan/Bryan there's a trap bet bot wanting £25000 at 1.15 on the set betting. Interesting place the betfair exchange is lol.

Bryan/Bryan and Dodig/Melo

You might say the market is bad, but the market would appear even worse if the bot and its 1.72 bets were removed.

If you think the 'true' odds are around evens, why aren't you offering anything close to evens yourself? Is it greed, or caution? If it's caution, you can't complain when someone with a higher appetite for risk is offering better odds.

I could lay them both at say 1.97 but it's not worth the time or effort to make a few quid as I can go bet on something else. You can't say that bot owner is risking anything when it's default odds are set at 1.71 both sides.

If you think correct odds are e.g. 1.81 and there is nobody else in the market, why don't you quickly drive the bot up to 1.92 then take the money off the bot that's just given you value, then repeat the operation?

Exactly.  Either the bot has a set price it is prepared to go up to, or it doesn't.

If it does, you sit in front of it no problems.  If it doesn't, you drive it up both sides and wipe it out.  Money in your pocket, no more bot.

Really the people complaining are the ones that aren't smart enough to automate their mug trapping strategies.

Harsh, but is it fair?

and this is untrue:  "You can't say that bot owner is risking anything when it's default odds are set at 1.71 both sides."

Unless the market is such that it IS evenly balanced and 1.71 is a bad price either side. If on one side that's value, the bot is by already offering you money.

Got to agree, most the of people complaining are doing pretty much the same as the bots just being front run cos they haven't automated things. The majority of people who bet on here see the site with a 30 second refresh and the lack of liquidity sends them away not the fact the best offer is just for £2, people seem to think they have some right to lay large overround books as a matter of course.

You lot sound like bot owners who like killing betting markets. I'll deal with you in the morning.

Fact is that bot has killed all the doubles matches as no one puts any money up anymore.

Is it one of your bots???

The bright spark has moved the odds from 1.71/1.71 to 1.68 and 1.75, must be on the ball.

The bot you're on about yomomma is the bet 365 tracker bot.
It goes up to 365s prices.
It will only jump you if you put anything with a liability of £30 or more.
It's active on loads of markets with differing stakes, mainly £16,£31/62 etc depending on the sport.

Of course it can picked off at times, but in the main it's a pest

I wonder how many people who don't use bots (such as me) have tried programming a bot but have been too dumb to do so (not me) or have strategies which no bot could replicate (me).

The dumb people are those saying leap-frogging bots don't prevent some people from seeding markets despite there being people on here saying they don't seed markets because of leap-frogging bots!

There is a huge difference between somebody that says they don't seed markets because of leapfrogging bots, and those that actually seed markets with enough money that they aren't scared off by a 2 pound bet.

People that aren't out leaping bots to a market more than 150% really aren't seeding markets now, are they?

I'm talking 7-8% four or five days before an event starts. 

As for £2, I take that to mean a small amount, not necessarily £2.  I could put down £1,000 and the bot might be £25, constantly replenishing and taking all the sub £25 bets. 

Days before an event, you tend to find smaller punters and so it's a significant barrier to seeding a market.  I don't seed the market, the bot doesn't seed the market, the punters who arrive see nothing there and take their custom elsewhere.  Many never come back.  The result being dead markets until a few hours before an event starts and a reduction in the number of customers, especially small time punters.

Of course, I could spend time trying to manipulate the bot, but it really is more hassle than it's worth nowadays.

I don't think bots should be banned, I'm merely stating some facts.

Oct 12, 2013 -- 10:48AM, Templeton Peck wrote:

I'm talking 7-8% four or five days before an event starts.  As for £2, I take that to mean a small amount, not necessarily £2.  I could put down £1,000 and the bot might be £25, constantly replenishing and taking all the sub £25 bets.  Days before an event, you tend to find smaller punters and so it's a significant barrier to seeding a market.  I don't seed the market, the bot doesn't seed the market, the punters who arrive see nothing there and take their custom elsewhere.  Many never come back.  The result being dead markets until a few hours before an event starts and a reduction in the number of customers, especially small time punters.Of course, I could spend time trying to manipulate the bot, but it really is more hassle than it's worth nowadays.I don't think bots should be banned, I'm merely stating some facts.

You do realise the contradiction though, surely?

I'm talking 7-8% four or five days before an event starts. 

As for £2, I take that to mean a small amount, not necessarily £2.  I could put down £1,000 and the bot might be £25, constantly replenishing and taking all the sub £25 bets.

So there is 25 pounds there, 4-5 days before an event, in a 107-108% market, replenishing itself to be always there?


Days before an event, you tend to find smaller punters and so it's a significant barrier to seeding a market.  I don't seed the market, the bot doesn't seed the market, the punters who arrive see nothing there and take their custom elsewhere.  Many never come back.  The result being dead markets until a few hours before an event starts and a reduction in the number of customers, especially small time punters.

So the main punters days before an event are punters looking to place sub 25 pound bets.  In your words.  Right?
So they turn up, see 25 available, and due to it being more than they wish to put on, they are scared off by the lack of liquidity, in a 107-108% market?
Ok then.




If it is satisfying the majority of punters betting, at a price that is very competitive, offering enough liquidity for the people betting, then how the fcuk does your statement make any sense?  If they are satisfying the punters that turn up, offering more than enough money for them, at a good price, then how aren't they seeding the market?

If their price is more competitive than yours, without watching the market, then they deserve the bets to match them.  Simple as that.

this thread does sound a lot like one group of sharks complaining that another group of sharks are eating all their fish, and wanting the other sharks banned so the original sharks can have more fish with less competition

As for £2, I take that to mean a small amount, not necessarily £2.  I could put down £1,000 and the bot might be £25, constantly replenishing and taking all the sub £25 bets. 

------

this is especially a problem in multi runner markets with quite a few long shots. at say 5/1 you're going to get bigger bets, so the 1.99 is no more than an irritation. but for say the 49/1 shots, most bets are for 2 quid, so you get matched 1p at a time as the bot replenishes.

the result is, you can't balance your book, which makes the market less attractive to work in.

Oct 12, 2013 -- 11:09AM, BJT wrote:

Oct 12, 2013 -- 10:48AM, Templeton Peck wrote:I'm talking 7-8% four or five days before an event starts.  As for £2, I take that to mean a small amount, not necessarily £2.  I could put down £1,000 and the bot might be £25, constantly replenishing and taking all the sub £25 bets.  Days before an event, you tend to find smaller punters and so it's a significant barrier to seeding a market.  I don't seed the market, the bot doesn't seed the market, the punters who arrive see nothing there and take their custom elsewhere.  Many never come back.  The result being dead markets until a few hours before an event starts and a reduction in the number of customers, especially small time punters.Of course, I could spend time trying to manipulate the bot, but it really is more hassle than it's worth nowadays.I don't think bots should be banned, I'm merely stating some facts.You do realise the contradiction though, surely?I'm talking 7-8% four or five days before an event starts.  As for £2, I take that to mean a small amount, not necessarily £2.  I could put down £1,000 and the bot might be £25, constantly replenishing and taking all the sub £25 bets.  So there is 25 pounds there, 4-5 days before an event, in a 107-108% market, replenishing itself to be always there?Days before an event, you tend to find smaller punters and so it's a significant barrier to seeding a market.  I don't seed the market, the bot doesn't seed the market, the punters who arrive see nothing there and take their custom elsewhere.  Many never come back.  The result being dead markets until a few hours before an event starts and a reduction in the number of customers, especially small time punters.So the main punters days before an event are punters looking to place sub 25 pound bets.  In your words.  Right?So they turn up, see 25 available, and due to it being more than they wish to put on, they are scared off by the lack of liquidity, in a 107-108% market?Ok then.If it is satisfying the majority of punters betting, at a price that is very competitive, offering enough liquidity for the people betting, then how the fcuk does your statement make any sense?  If they are satisfying the punters that turn up, offering more than enough money for them, at a good price, then how aren't they seeding the market?

I'm not sure if you're trolling or dumb.  If the former, I'm out of here. If the latter, please read my post again.  You're omitting key sentences such as: "Days before an event, you tend to find smaller punters and so it's a significant barrier to seeding a market.  I don't seed the market, the bot doesn't seed the market, the punters who arrive see nothing there and take their custom elsewhere."

Oct 12, 2013 -- 11:59AM, subversion wrote:

this thread does sound a lot like one group of sharks complaining that another group of sharks are eating all their fish, and wanting the other sharks banned so the original sharks can have more fish with less competition

This is a common misunderstanding.  The majority of us are saying:

Bots reliant on seeders prevents seeders from seeding.

The problem with this is it results in dead markets until close to the event start.  This is a major turn off to customers who want a bet and so take their custom elsewhere.  They see Betfair as many of us 'sharks' see ****, i.e. not enough liquidity to make it worth us even logging in.

so, what you are saying is

i) seeders seed the market
ii) bot (or manual player) comes along and offers better value (which is how exchanges are supposed to work)
iii) seeders complain that someone is offering better value

heres a hint. nobody has a divine right to be at the front of the queue. this applies to bots and manual players.

The only way to compete is for the manual player to become a bot.

Templeton Peck is right though "Bots reliant on seeders prevents seeders from seeding." Though this only applies in weak markets.

It's just that the solution to this problem is not to stop the bots, but to become (semi-) automated yourself.

Bots are a hassle for backers too. You have to spend time playing cat and mouse using a bogus lay to drag the bot away from its junk price to a reasonable one to get a back on. Who wants to spend 30 mins to get a back on? That's for punters who know what they're doing, beginners probably look at the market and either take the junk price not knowing any better, or come to the conclusion that Betfair odds are toxic and bet elsewhere.

It's too late to do anything about it anyway. The site has lost punters of all varieties because it is an unpleasant, and unreliable site to use. The site is essentially winding down to one that will only cater for the biggest events/markets, everything else will go through the sportsbook, or people will be betting outwith the Betfair empire altogether.

all this talk about bots giving better value than manual traders

bots give very poor value,but give decent value on the few times they are threatened ,which is most of the time as manual traders can't be ar$ed .

get rid of featureless bots ,get some recreational traders in ,make it a FUN place to be and watch the markets flourish with recreational players .

for the last 3 years, fun players have been looking at this site and running a mile

which is most of the time * 


which is only some of the time

obviously on the high profile events bots blend in with the landscape - so i'm really talking about the nearly-dead markets

The apt question here is, in these markets.. Lets consider theoretical case of this bot making a lay, and it is as stated a B365 tracker.
The bot is then just going to be laying from
1.01 to (B365price - arb - enough to make a profit).
The complainers are trying to say this is ruining the market but in reality this is a market seeding bot tracked on 365 optimising itself to maximise profit because the market allows it.
But back to the apt question : by definition anyone taking that lay on BF is getting crap odds, they should be on B365 and get the better driving odds as they must already exist. So ... "why"?

So the real failure... the REAL failure here, is the odds checker and b365 advertising depts

subversion • October 12, 2013 3:27 PM BST
so, what you are saying is

i) seeders seed the market
ii) bot (or manual player) comes along and offers better value (which is how exchanges are supposed to work)
iii) seeders complain that someone is offering better value

heres a hint. nobody has a divine right to be at the front of the queue. this applies to bots and manual players.

Sigh.  You almost got there.  iii) should read: seeders don't bother wasting their time seeding a market as it's only being used helping a bot make money.

TheInvestor2 • October 12, 2013 7:27 PM BST
The only way to compete is for the manual player to become a bot.

Templeton Peck is right though "Bots reliant on seeders prevents seeders from seeding." Though this only applies in weak markets.

It's just that the solution to this problem is not to stop the bots, but to become (semi-) automated yourself.

I'm afraid that's not the solution.  All that would happen is the bot who's happy to take the smallest margin will be the one who gets matched.  Why on earth would I want to seed a market well in advance of a market opening at a tiny margin?

I agree it's only an issue in weak markets, but these weak markets are becoming obsolete and deter customer from using Betfair.  Betfair acknowledge this and are looking at ways at increasing liquidity and seeding of these weak markets.

"in advance of a market opening" should read "in advance of an event starting"

so come on then TP, whats your preferred solution?

other than banning people who offer better odds than you, of course

and fyi, i'm in agreement with Investor - adapt.

I really hate that 365 tracker bot. Been down for a little time so i hoped that i had disapeard but no no.. Back in full business again.

So the obscure markets are the reason new punters come to Betfair and are then turned off by it?  You don't think they are coming for the same markets everybody else bets on?  Seems to me, the obscure markets are more likely bet by professionals, or astute punters at the very least.

People simply moaning that somebody is better at catching out false bets than they are.

Obscure markets being close to empty is actually quite a big problem I think. A lot of the fun bettors like to do all their betting in one place, so even if they understand Betfair is best value a fair bit of the time, they might still go to a traditional bookie because they can do everything in one account.

I think that was part of the rationale behind the sportsbook. I think doing 0.5% commission and somehow scrapping PC like they tried to do for rugby would help, but the payoff would be visible only after 1-2 years.

Again, I agree with TheInvestor.  Alongside liquidity, BF's other great strength was in it's vast array of markets available.  While matched amounts might have been a fraction of what was available on the main markets, historically, those numbers have dropped off a cliff further on a number of sports of late.  It all equates to one less reason for recreational punters to come to BF.

Oct 13, 2013 -- 1:13PM, subversion wrote:

so come on then TP, whats your preferred solution?other than banning people who offer better odds than you, of course

I haven't even inferred bots/people should be banned, let alone said it outright.  There is no solution to the issue I highlight. 

As for adapting, I have.  I now rarely seed markets, I've become a position taker waiting until closer to an event start to get involved.  I expect my pre-PC winnings this year will be 50% higher than last year and 100% higher than the year before.

Some of you are confusing my confirming a problem exists with me throwing a hissy fit.

Oct 13, 2013 -- 2:29PM, TheInvestor2 wrote:

Obscure markets being close to empty is actually quite a big problem I think. A lot of the fun bettors like to do all their betting in one place, so even if they understand Betfair is best value a fair bit of the time, they might still go to a traditional bookie because they can do everything in one account.I think that was part of the rationale behind the sportsbook. I think doing 0.5% commission and somehow scrapping PC like they tried to do for rugby would help, but the payoff would be visible only after 1-2 years.

Yep, Betfair are concerned by empty markets.  They know a less-informed punter seeing this will be put off the site for good.  As Latalomne says, the liquidity in plenty of side markets has disappeared until close to the event's start time.

Cross matching was trumpeted as providing liquidity to these side markets but never seems to have materialised, for any other punters using the main markets to feed derivative ones commission especially PC comms makes it a no go area.