General Betting
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
We know the forums are full of people who make a living using time advantages and shell and pea activities to mug betfair customers often at the cost of the rest of us losing those customers forever. Bookmakers seem to hang on to their customers despite lack of in-running or confining in-running bet placement to neutral moments.
Does anyone know how much of betfair's income comes from in-running (not to be confused with turnover which is obviously bloated by ping-pong money and large 1.01 bets)?
Does anyone know how much of betfair's income comes from in-running (not to be confused with turnover which is obviously bloated by ping-pong money and large 1.01 bets)?
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 78
|
By:
Pre and post pc figures would obviously be appreciated.
|
|
By:
ann witt 08 Nov 13 07:51 Joined: 10 Jan 02 | Topic/replies: 180 | Blogger: ann witt's blog
We know the forums are full of people who make a living using time advantages and shell and pea activities to mug betfair customers often at the cost of the rest of us losing those customers forever I bet exclusively in running on the horses. I have no time advantage other than Racing UK & Betfair Video, all available to anyone. Both have time lags of at least 2/3 secs behind live so I am at a disadvantage. There are loads like me. Most I would say. I make it pay and do it for a living. Loads of others do too. The myth that everyone who makes money has some sort of time advantage always gets rolled out. Of course it goes on but not to the extent that people think. |
|
By:
I'm in the same boat as Amanda, and to add a bit relevant to the initial post I have placed large sums pre race, every race, for ten years that would stop at a stroke were there no IR. I expect there are many in that position too.
|
|
By:
We know the forums are full of people who make a living using time advantages and shell and pea activities to mug betfair customers often at the cost of the rest of us losing those customers forever
Some of us are also making a living trading in-play using Sky Sports pictures. What enables us to profit is being able to price up the events as they are happening. One of the attractions of betting in-play is that the playing field is more level in terms of information. Pre-off, a few privileged individuals can profit from their inside knowledge. Once the event starts, most, or almost all, of that information becomes public. This, Feck, is probably a big reason why the pre-off markets are rather dry, especially in your chosen sport, which is more vulnerable than most to the effect of insider trading. |
|
By:
In case it wasn't obvious I also bet decent money every race IR of course....
|
|
By:
Read somewhere that about half of b365 and hills online profits come from inplay. On Betfair tennis, soccer and cricket about 90% of traded sum are inplay. The longer the event lasts the higher the percentage.
|
|
By:
And in defence of the sport where I do almost all my trading (football), it is a very fair betting environment.
The fact that Betfair manage the markets with the suspend system means that time advantages are much less significant: last night, for instance, I did about 15% of the volume in the Tottenham match odds market, using regular UK tv pictures. And the fact that it's a team game, with, in the case of the top-level European leagues at least, players earning large amounts of money, means that it's not massively susceptible to corruption. |
|
By:
Some of us are also making a living trading in-play using Sky Sports pictures. What enables us to profit is being able to price up the events as they are happening.
Shell and pea is also available using the general feed on flies-round-sh1te markets. If you're profit is based entirely on pricing events as they happen then would it matter to you if you could only bet during neutral moments? frog, surprised at those b365/hills figures. The 90% betfair figure presumably relates to turnover which makes it meaningless. |
|
By:
Football I don't have much of a problem with contrarian although there are people being hoovered there who might then leave the site. There's also the problem of being able to bet 0-0 when it's 3-3.
|
|
By:
If you're profit is based entirely on pricing events as they happen then would it matter to you if you could only bet during neutral moments?
No, I wouldn't have a problem with that, in principle. For the bots I run, it would certainly be an advantage, in the sense that their margins would increase. However, both manual trading and bot turnover would undoubtedly drop significantly. People want to bet as much of the time as possible. If there were constant interruptions to the times, in-play, when they could place their bets, they'd just go elsewhere. As far as football is concerned, anyway, a very large percentage of the in-play time is neutral already. This is why I am able to run bots offering prices very close to fair value on in-play matches. There are, of course, certain moments - dangerous free kicks, etc - which are far from 'neutral'. But these are rare enough to allow a bot to make a profit, even though it doesn't know the details of what is happening on the pitch. |
|
By:
Same for me as others responding, I'm 100% racing in-play, a straight back or lay punter. Have nothing other than a decent broadband connection & RUK & BF LV - I find it hard to believe that anybody has a significant advantage over what I'm seeing anymore.
|
|
By:
Most of my betting is in-running on tennis, football, horses and when available, cricket. I have absolutely no time advantage, but conversely won't play when I know the time disadvantage is too weighted against me.
|
|
By:
ann witt 08 Nov 13 10:58 Joined: 10 Jan 02 | Topic/replies: 186 | Blogger: ann witt's blog
Shell and pea is also available using the general feed on flies-round-sh1te markets. If you're profit is based entirely on pricing events as they happen then would it matter to you if you could only bet during neutral moments? frog, surprised at those b365/hills figures. The 90% betfair figure presumably relates to turnover which makes it meaningless. That's how pinnacle operates on some in play markets, and it's definitely a lot less attractive than the constant availability of prices on Betfair. |
|
By:
sorry Feck, but I'm the same as mandarin, amanda, gerard etc ... horse racing only, 100% in running, no time advantage, decent Broadband,RUK and ATR.
no In Running, no gus, it's as simple as that  |
|
By:
No need to apologise gus. I never for a moment insinuated no one could make a profit at in-play without a time or interface cluedo advantage. I was really looking for answers such as frog's rather than a succession of "I'm an ir winner and I'd be gone without it" posts though. I was attempting to gauge the effect having fair markets would have. If exchange betting is to have a future something has to be done to stop the exodus of aggrieved punters.
That's how pinnacle operates on some in play markets, and it's definitely a lot less attractive than the constant availability of prices on Betfair. It's a lot less attractive to who Investor? I wouldn't imagine it would be a hindrance to sensible punters wanting a bet on the outcome of the game. Do you mean it wouldn't be the same without clowns betting at free kicks etc. not realising they'll only get matched if it doesn't result in a goal? "Constant availability of prices" is a bit of a misnomer on betfair, especially if you've got a 7 second bet placement countdown or you're a newbie with a 30 second refresh rate. |
|
By:
oh god, is ann feck?
that would explain a lot, actually.and to answer the original question, yes it is. |
|
By:
Based on what viv? Reading the forum?
|
|
By:
PS I am not Feck but I am a fecker.
|
|
By:
watching football markets during games.
|
|
By:
I've tried Pinnacle a bit for i/r on the NFL and I think the point Investor is getting at is that they rarely have a market up which makes it a very frustrating site to use in play as most of the time you cannot get a bet on.
The current in-play offering from BF still beats every other offering hands down merely by having the market available at all times. It's a huge advantage over all other i/r bookies who are constantly taking their prices down. |
|
By:
So who the hell is losing money inrunning if every stay at home joe can make a killing using atr pictures? Half a furlong is long way...
|
|
By:
dunno Muqbil ... and i dunno about the others on here, but I suspect I'm a bit like a mouse at a banquet scurrying around under the table snaffling up crumbs.
probably feck could think of a less wholesome analogy  |
|
By:
|
|
By:
BF live video is about 4.5 secs ahead of ATR, Muqbil - not ideal, as you are obviously still behind the track boys, but do-able.
|
|
By:
ann witt 08 Nov 13 17:23 Joined: 10 Jan 02 | Topic/replies: 190 | Blogger: ann witt's blog
No need to apologise gus. I never for a moment insinuated no one could make a profit at in-play without a time or interface cluedo advantage. I was really looking for answers such as frog's rather than a succession of "I'm an ir winner and I'd be gone without it" posts though. I was attempting to gauge the effect having fair markets would have. If exchange betting is to have a future something has to be done to stop the exodus of aggrieved punters. That's how pinnacle operates on some in play markets, and it's definitely a lot less attractive than the constant availability of prices on Betfair. It's a lot less attractive to who Investor? I wouldn't imagine it would be a hindrance to sensible punters wanting a bet on the outcome of the game. Do you mean it wouldn't be the same without clowns betting at free kicks etc. not realising they'll only get matched if it doesn't result in a goal? "Constant availability of prices" is a bit of a misnomer on betfair, especially if you've got a 7 second bet placement countdown or you're a newbie with a 30 second refresh rate. Well from my point of view it's a loss less attractive because betting like that would mean far less turnover, which for me would equate to far less profit. As TheVis says, not being able to get a bet on for extended periods of time, is bad news. I imagine that for the fun bettor, sitting there for 5 minutes in between bets patiently waiting for the next opportunity to have a go is not a premier entertainment experience either. |
|
By:
I'm another IP Horse price trader RUK and Betfair Live Feed. If in play was abolished I would be greatly hindered.
|
|
By:
Well from my point of view it's a loss less attractive because betting like that would mean far less turnover, which for me would equate to far less profit. As TheVis says, not being able to get a bet on for extended periods of time, is bad news.
I think we'd already established it would be bad news for you Investor but why would it be bad news for the recreational punter (least ways the recreational punter who isn't daft enough to think his bet will get matched if the free kick results in a goal)? |
|
By:
ann witt 09 Nov 13 05:37 Joined: 10 Jan 02 | Topic/replies: 197 | Blogger: ann witt's blog
I think we'd already established it would be bad news for you Investor but why would it be bad news for the recreational punter (least ways the recreational punter who isn't daft enough to think his bet will get matched if the free kick results in a goal)? See above "I imagine that for the fun bettor, sitting there for 5 minutes in between bets patiently waiting for the next opportunity to have a go is not a premier entertainment experience either." |
|
By:
Witt, it's abundantly clear you are feck. Why deny it?
|
|
By:
Where would these 5 minutes come in Investor? Most games are 90 minutes of sheer and utter boredom. If the suspend monkey could press a button to indicate the ball was not in play but in a dangerous position (e.g. free kick outside the box, corner) and unsuspend the moment it was back in play then bets could be provisionally matched immediately (i.e. no countdown) but only become fully matched after x seconds of non-suspended play elapsed. That would allow for people like contrarian to put up odds based offers without fear of being hoovered or mini hoovered (OK, I suppose someone could break clear and take x secs to score but unlikely for x>=7). In fact he'd be able to have the whole thing automated if the score and any ordering offs were available through the API. Would that not create more liquidity and give recreational punters a fairer go?
|
|
By:
ann witt 09 Nov 13 11:34 Joined: 10 Jan 02 | Topic/replies: 197 | Blogger: ann witt's blog
Where would these 5 minutes come in Investor? Most games are 90 minutes of sheer and utter boredom. If the suspend monkey could press a button to indicate the ball was not in play but in a dangerous position (e.g. free kick outside the box, corner) and unsuspend the moment it was back in play then bets could be provisionally matched immediately (i.e. no countdown) but only become fully matched after x seconds of non-suspended play elapsed. That would allow for people like contrarian to put up odds based offers without fear of being hoovered or mini hoovered (OK, I suppose someone could break clear and take x secs to score but unlikely for x>=7). In fact he'd be able to have the whole thing automated if the score and any ordering offs were available through the API. Would that not create more liquidity and give recreational punters a fairer go? That's what they do in Asia, it's called 'dangerball'. Except they do it in every dangerous situation, not just dead ball stuff. In the markets I trade this is close to a non-issue anyway. I had a go trading a Mexican match (over/unders) last night to see how much I would get matched, and I traded the whole thing without a feed, and still turned over a large proportion of the total. Match odds speed matters a lot more. |
|
By:
for those without a time advantage, the attraction of in play betting is the capability to construct derivative bets in an encompassing market at perceived good value.
the bonus of course, and something which feck always had a pretty valid beef about, is that i can have scores of these derivative bets in an encompassing market whilst only paying commission on my net profit for the market. |
|
By:
and how many goals actually materialise from 'dangerous situations' ?
the bulk of games tend to be 0-0,1-1,1-0,2-0 affairs -football is too low scoring every so often you will get a high scoring 2-2,3-2 etc then calculate the 'dangerous situations' per game ,and then work out how many goals are scored out of the blue , it wouldn't be worth anyones while for what they'd get matched (if they did ) you'd die of boredom first  |
|
By:
Not sure what point you're making Coachbuster. Are you saying there's only liquidity at dangerous situations and/or nobody's interested in betting on the outcome of the match? Using the provisional matching idea, anyone who was at the game looking to take advantage of the new rules would certainly die of boredom. Is a level playing field the last thing most in-play "experts" want?
|
|
By:
feck, if you were trying to sneak a living by trying to guess when a goal is imminent you'd be onto a loser , certainly in respect of wasted time and effort
the few goals you do get in soccer rarely materialise from so called dangerous situations ,and fast feed odds generally reflect the situation anyway there is little recreational money in relation to the smart money fast feed = analogue radio commentary |
|
By:
Coachbuster, is it not the activities of dafties who think otherwise that make the market for shrewdies. In the tennis/cricket markets those who put their bets up at safe moments then get 7 or so seconds to decide if they want the incoming dafty's bets. If that "look ahead" facility wasn't there would liquidity plummet? I think it would. Are those attempting to take advantage of dangerous situations in football not just the equivalent of the tennis/cricket dafties who think the offer they're attempting to match will still be there if play goes their way?
If there's little recreational money surely the smart money is then chasing buttons in which case it must dwindle and die? |
|
By:
if it walks like a feck and quacks like a feck...
|
|
By:
I'm another in-running player horse racing with no time advantage - use RUK and BF LV. I could not contemplate doing what I was doing 10-20 years ago , i.e studying every race and deciding on my bets before the race - I believe there is so much corruption these days I would be skint within days.
Contrarian's post above (11.18) eloquently describes that attractiveness of in-running betting. |
|
By:
not sure how many dafties are left - relative to the volume anyway . I have noticed that odds correspond very nicely with the action according to my analogue commentary, so it's all about the bots feeding off the crumbs .
Tennis matches i find, are much harder to gauge by radio commentary as Tennis is much faster paced than footie, with many more decisive elements happening every few minutes . Betting using old BBC analogue during Wimbledon told you how many courtsiders were about - esp those flies round sh1te markets . |