Smarkets public API
-
spreadbetting
- Posts: 3140
- Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2010 8:06 pm
Who knows, doesn't appear to be shown anywhere on their website, which looks like some throwback to the early days of the internet 
Surprised they haven't got any flashing gifs on there tbh.
If you've got an account you could match a bet on a quiet market and see how they calculate the liquidity, I'd guess it'll be the same as Betdaq to inflate the figures.
Surprised they haven't got any flashing gifs on there tbh.If you've got an account you could match a bet on a quiet market and see how they calculate the liquidity, I'd guess it'll be the same as Betdaq to inflate the figures.
-
spreadbetting
- Posts: 3140
- Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2010 8:06 pm
Think Betdaq just do the layers liability, pity they're not as quck opening the public API that's been due since around 2010
spreadbetting wrote: ↑Thu May 24, 2018 6:29 pmThink Betdaq just do the layers liability, pity they're not as quck opening the public API that's been due since around 2010
Not the guy but they void bets after they're settled.
https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/ ... ollars_on/
Calls himself a bookie, all you need to know.
Hey guys, few comments:
1) We don't allow self-matching
2) Our volume is indeed backer stake plus layer liability.
3) We calculate "BF" style volume and we might publish it, so y'all can compare, but we haven't decided yet. Comparing the SM vol to BF vol methods, like for like, the SM is much higher.
4) We never artificially inflate the trading volume. A lot of it comes from matched bettors based in the UK fwiw.
5) We do operate a sports betting syndicate, like a lot of companies. BD, Matchbook, etc, operate syndicates. We disclose it in our annual report and to our customers. Happy to answer any questions. We never front run and we treat the customer (very) fairly.
6) Please don't try to s*** an exchange. It might be bad for your health!
7) For a sense of scale, we trade about £400m per month (Smarkets method) and have about 80k customers per year (mostly UK)
1) We don't allow self-matching
2) Our volume is indeed backer stake plus layer liability.
3) We calculate "BF" style volume and we might publish it, so y'all can compare, but we haven't decided yet. Comparing the SM vol to BF vol methods, like for like, the SM is much higher.
4) We never artificially inflate the trading volume. A lot of it comes from matched bettors based in the UK fwiw.
5) We do operate a sports betting syndicate, like a lot of companies. BD, Matchbook, etc, operate syndicates. We disclose it in our annual report and to our customers. Happy to answer any questions. We never front run and we treat the customer (very) fairly.
6) Please don't try to s*** an exchange. It might be bad for your health!
7) For a sense of scale, we trade about £400m per month (Smarkets method) and have about 80k customers per year (mostly UK)
I think I am always going to stay away from an exchange which runs a syndicate, its impossible for you to be independent when its all under the same company. We all know Betfair cross match and also seed some markets early on but I don’t personally think there is any issues with this.vide0star wrote: ↑Fri Jun 01, 2018 8:56 pmHey guys, few comments:
1) We don't allow self-matching
2) Our volume is indeed backer stake plus layer liability.
3) We calculate "BF" style volume and we might publish it, so y'all can compare, but we haven't decided yet. Comparing the SM vol to BF vol methods, like for like, the SM is much higher.
4) We never artificially inflate the trading volume. A lot of it comes from matched bettors based in the UK fwiw.
5) We do operate a sports betting syndicate, like a lot of companies. BD, Matchbook, etc, operate syndicates. We disclose it in our annual report and to our customers. Happy to answer any questions. We never front run and we treat the customer (very) fairly.
6) Please don't try to s*** an exchange. It might be bad for your health!
7) For a sense of scale, we trade about £400m per month (Smarkets method) and have about 80k customers per year (mostly UK)
Can anyone see the Syndicate being mentioned?
https://files.smarkets.com/pdf/smarkets ... t-2016.pdf
We treat customers fairly by never changing or cancelling orders after a customer order comes in. If we have a price in the market, we of course, honour that price and execution. We also now have 4 or 5 other institutions trading and we're adding about one major market maker a month.The Group, through its 100% owned subsidiary, Hanson Applied Sciences
Limited, also provides liquidity on the exchange by entering into algorithmic
trades on the market to enhance the user experience and for profit making
purposes. The positions so arising are closely risk managed. As we grow, our
aim is to offer better prices and further enhance the liquidity of existing and
new markets.
That statement is a direct contradiction of what was reported in the first post of the below betfair forum thread from about 2 years ago.vide0star wrote: ↑Sat Jun 02, 2018 5:11 pmWe treat customers fairly by never changing or cancelling orders after a customer order comes in. If we have a price in the market, we of course, honour that price and execution. We also now have 4 or 5 other institutions trading and we're adding about one major market maker a month.The Group, through its 100% owned subsidiary, Hanson Applied Sciences
Limited, also provides liquidity on the exchange by entering into algorithmic
trades on the market to enhance the user experience and for profit making
purposes. The positions so arising are closely risk managed. As we grow, our
aim is to offer better prices and further enhance the liquidity of existing and
new markets.
http://community.betfair.com/horse_raci ... 76159&pg=1
The customer concerned actually posted an email, purporting to be from smarkets, stating that "we (smarkets)will be voiding the lays made at a price of 1.01 on the horse Thatsallimsaying as these were clearly the result of a significant user error"
Do you deny the above? I believe it either went to court, or was on the verge of so doing. Your statement would also appear to contradict smarkets' own policy, which was co-incidentally hurriedly amended a very short time after the above betfair forum thread appeared.
https://help.smarkets.com/hc/en-gb/arti ... ets-Policy
An example of treating customers fairly? Input error is as input error does.
By the way, what was the self-censored word in 6) above? I really can't work it out. And whatever it is, it looks like a threat.