£28.7M Traded

Up there anyway . Lots of fluctuations with no one going to run away with it . And entertaining .

2008-06-12 - US Open: 32,438,384.03
2007-07-19 - The Open Championship: 30,542,376.22

Given the amount of automation these days, that shows how trading levels have really dropped off on this site the last few years.

£49m was traded on Djokovic v. Nadal in the Aus Open tennis final this year.

Is it not 28.7M plus the money traded on the players that missed the cut?

Twas great to see some constant liquidity with closer to real time pictures at last.
Absolute gambling bliss, massive fluctuations, many potential winners in running and value back and lay opportunities galore.
For instance, backed Louis for 5grand at 19.5 saturday morning and sold for 5 grand on sat afternoon at 18 without a shot being struck, in clover from that point onwards.

Got to agree fringe.

Liquidity was good this week. If only it was like this every week.

Yeah....if only it was like this weekly.....i would settle for 50% of the amount traded weekly.....lets hope many got the golfing bug and stay on here

The problem with BF's method of calculating liquidity is it takes no account of prices being matched, so you can't really measure like-for like, without knowing the average price matched on the event (purple calculate this better).

So it's hard to compare with previous majors as every golf event is completely different over 4 days.  But £28.7m is a damn sight more in real terms than £49 million on a two-man tennis match although, of course, a golf tournament lasts much longer.   There, the bulk of the money is traded at odds-on, in a golf tournament the average is more like double figures.

When you take into account the fact that no-one was even odds on til very near the end of the four days and there was only a very brief flurry of sub 1.2 betting on the final playoff hole, 28.7m in real terms is pretty huge, even in for a golf major.  If, as Gus posts, the record is the 2008 US Open, then I'd say realistically liquidity has increased: the 2008 US Open had an 18 hole playoff between Woods and Mediate, which means effectively an extra 24 hours of money changing hands at an odds-on average.

Interesting points TB.

Yup good stuff TB...Should have added "Most traded on a golf event"

How can BF's method of calculating liquidity not take into account the prices being matched though?  I don't follow....

When it comes to the amount traded, Betfair count every dollar twice, so if $10 is bet on a player, then it shows up as $20 traded ($10 backed, $10 layed).

To take the price into consideration you'd have to multiply that $10 bet by the price it matched at.

That would mean in events where short-priced favourites were backed to the hilt the turnover figure would look significantly smaller.

Personally I wouldn't like to see Betfair go that way. Having both, or having the choice would be fine, but I like seeing how much actual money has been bet.

If Betfair calculated matched volumes in the same way as BD this would have been an event that matched well in excess of £100m. There was more than £7m matched before the off with Woods the shortest price at 6.2. In real terms I have no doubts that this was the biggest golf market we have ever seen (obv the Woods/Mediate playoff saw more money matched but huge amounts of that were after the 4th rd). It is just such a shame that golf is crippled by such poor quality feeds on a weekly basis.

The thing that makes no sense with BF's calculation is the doubling of the stake.  If BF want to simply reflect the amount being staked by backers on an event then fine, just show that but don't double it.

But if it's reflecting the layers stake then the doubling is completely wrong - if I lay you 1000/1 for a tenner, then your stake is £10, and my stake is £10k, because simply I'm betting 10k that x doesn't win. The second tenner they add is completely irrelevant to what's just taken place.

Personally, I'd like to see the layers stake added in full because this would allow true comparison between all events, but I also don't see why they couldn't record both.

still only adds up to an average days horse racing for betfair, that puts it in perspective.