50 races, 10k a race isn't a huge amount.
Betfair was reluctant to give me any information on my activity, but when I started trading seriously on Betdaq I asked them to check my account to see if I was aggressively taking prices or adding liquidity to their exchange. On average I offered 85% of my positions to the market. I haven't gone through that exercise recently, but I'd say if you offer you benefit from the spread as well as any net positive strategy you have found, so that's why I do it.
Smarkets's skullduggery
But I’m surprised you’re not more critical of Smarkets’ new 1% turnover rule. Surely that’s faaaar worse than 40% tax. At £500,000 turnover in an afternoon like Dallas mentioned you’d have a bill of £5,000 rather than a tax of 40% of your profits at Betfair.Euler wrote: ↑Wed Nov 14, 2018 9:09 amIn essence, I think that's probably the most eloquent explanation I've seen of why the PC or similar exists. I've struggled to put it into context, but that actually does it quite well.vide0star wrote: ↑Tue Nov 13, 2018 11:03 pmThere's a principle in market making called adverse selection (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse_selection), which says for all things being equal, you're more likely to get filled when you're wrong than when you're right. Adverse selection happens in all financial markets but it's particularly acute in sports. Think goals, team sheets, red cards, inclement weather, etc, etc. This makes sports market making extra difficult.
The problem I have with Betfair's implementation is that they must know that I offer most of the time in the markets, but I get treated like a Viking warrior who is out to rape and pillage. Contrast that with Betdaq who have done everything possible to encourage me to be active. It just feels like Betfair have let their corporate objective overcome their objectivity.
Are Smarkets’ going to put you on their Market Maker fee structure instead? Well I’d like to hear about it if they do, but I doubt they will.
The only way we’re ever going to get fees down for winners is through industry competition, but if tiny competitors to Befair can’t even come up with more attractive fee structures than Betfair, what hope do we have?
The smaller competitors are basically saying the idealistic betting exchange can’t be done. They either can’t make enough money doing it, or they can make more money doing it the way Betfair are essentially doing it (but be even more ruthless).
The smaller competitors are basically saying the idealistic betting exchange can’t be done. They either can’t make enough money doing it, or they can make more money doing it the way Betfair are essentially doing it (but be even more ruthless).
I think the problem is that there very few people who fit in the winner category, it’s only when an exchange has been running for a while that they realise this. To put it bluntly winners just take money out of the pot.xitian wrote: ↑Fri Nov 16, 2018 11:18 pmThe only way we’re ever going to get fees down for winners is through industry competition, but if tiny competitors to Befair can’t even come up with more attractive fee structures than Betfair, what hope do we have?
The smaller competitors are basically saying the idealistic betting exchange can’t be done. They either can’t make enough money doing it, or they can make more money doing it the way Betfair are essentially doing it (but be even more ruthless).
Betfair wants users to win lots and lose lots, paying commission in between, however without PC what is the incentive for me to play strategies that pay commission?
Just read about it again and genuinely can't believe it, say you're trading a horse at 6.0 and stake about £3k on both sides...if the horse wins you pay 1% not on the turnover (3k) but 1% on 3k x 5 (6.0 or 5/1) so that's £150!!! Even if the horse loses you'll still pay £30.
Absolute joke of a company, had high hopes for them too but this is worse than Betfair and Matchbook's PC put together!
Absolute joke of a company, had high hopes for them too but this is worse than Betfair and Matchbook's PC put together!
-
- Posts: 3140
- Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2010 8:06 pm
Yep, you just have to hope the horse you're trading doesn't go onto to win at those higher prices. £1500 either side of a trade around 6's means you need at least 4-6 ticks just to break even depending on which way the market moves on a winner as both opening and closing trades will attract charges. At least it should kill off any competition to market make at higher prices leaving a blank canvas for the in house traders.Naffman wrote: ↑Sat Nov 17, 2018 6:00 pmJust read about it again and genuinely can't believe it, say you're trading a horse at 6.0 and stake about £3k on both sides...if the horse wins you pay 1% not on the turnover (3k) but 1% on 3k x 5 (6.0 or 5/1) so that's £150!!! Even if the horse loses you'll still pay £30.
Absolute joke of a company, had high hopes for them too but this is worse than Betfair and Matchbook's PC put together!
This deserves a bump...
Been using Smarkets for the past month (don't ask) - its def NOT an exchange, at least one that is "fair and transparent".
Case in point - been laying 0-0 in the correct score football market for a bit of fun (no value in the over 0.5 goals market given retail odds).
Been having some success and built decent bank. Initially was able to green out lay back easily at default 1000/0-1 once goal had been scored (the over 0.5 goals market does auto settle but as mentioned, odds are sportbook esque). Gradually noticed the time taken for green up bet to match was taking longer - to the extent that it won't now' get matched at all/ or is painfully slow e.g. 1p per 30/40 seconds.
Checked with customer support to see if my account/ speed to green up was being limited. The answer was resoundingly NO.
I wasn't convinced and asked a mate to take the same available bet at 10000-1 on the same match when a goal had been scored. LO AND BEHOLD it was matched instantly.
As thread notes, the counterparty I'm betting against is probably Smarkets/Hansons....
Is this legal behaviour for a purported exchange? Can I escalate this anywhere?
Thanks in advance
Been using Smarkets for the past month (don't ask) - its def NOT an exchange, at least one that is "fair and transparent".
Case in point - been laying 0-0 in the correct score football market for a bit of fun (no value in the over 0.5 goals market given retail odds).
Been having some success and built decent bank. Initially was able to green out lay back easily at default 1000/0-1 once goal had been scored (the over 0.5 goals market does auto settle but as mentioned, odds are sportbook esque). Gradually noticed the time taken for green up bet to match was taking longer - to the extent that it won't now' get matched at all/ or is painfully slow e.g. 1p per 30/40 seconds.
Checked with customer support to see if my account/ speed to green up was being limited. The answer was resoundingly NO.
I wasn't convinced and asked a mate to take the same available bet at 10000-1 on the same match when a goal had been scored. LO AND BEHOLD it was matched instantly.
As thread notes, the counterparty I'm betting against is probably Smarkets/Hansons....
Is this legal behaviour for a purported exchange? Can I escalate this anywhere?
Thanks in advance
-
- Posts: 863
- Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2015 6:47 pm
One thing to add as recent update.
Recently I've mostly been using Betdaq and Smarkets rather than BF.
Early market action on Smarkets is better than Betdaq IMO - the purple one often dead for any early market action, while Smarkets has decent enough early money around.
Just a small (positive) comparison for Smarkets, as I note a lot of negativity around towards the place.
Recently I've mostly been using Betdaq and Smarkets rather than BF.
Early market action on Smarkets is better than Betdaq IMO - the purple one often dead for any early market action, while Smarkets has decent enough early money around.
Just a small (positive) comparison for Smarkets, as I note a lot of negativity around towards the place.
-
- Posts: 863
- Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2015 6:47 pm
I presume the reason most on this forum are anti is because it won't allow Betangel use there?
Fairly obvious and fair criticism.
Fairly obvious and fair criticism.
I have been using smarkets for 10 years now and generally find them reliable though they do mess up at times.
They have closed my account today and despite numerous requests by me for an a reason they refuse to give it. Looks to me as the easy way to say we don't close winning accounts is just to refuse to give a reason. If I've done something wrong then why not just give me some indication of what that is. It's no Coincidence that I've just had my best few months ever on smarkets.
Anyway... That's up to them. It's their business so if they choose to close winning accounts so be it. Just stop denying it.
I saw other comments in this thread about throttling. 100% they do it.
Maybe 2 years ago a friend and I spotted some golf bets that arbed between smarkets and betfair.
He did a few... Stakes taken on smarkets and then instantly available again.
I did some... Stakes disappeared almost immediately.
From time to time we check it out on some markets....and it's always the same. He gets stakes matched within seconds. I either see all the liquidity disappear or I get a few pound matched every 5 mins or so.
It is completely obvious they are in done way sharing customer data with other parties.
Undeniable
And probably illegal.
Id like to see Jason Truss deny that one.
They will close your account if you hit a good run.... But they will just quote clause 2.10
So they don't have to justify it
Jason.... Ive emailed you and would appreciate a reply.
They have closed my account today and despite numerous requests by me for an a reason they refuse to give it. Looks to me as the easy way to say we don't close winning accounts is just to refuse to give a reason. If I've done something wrong then why not just give me some indication of what that is. It's no Coincidence that I've just had my best few months ever on smarkets.
Anyway... That's up to them. It's their business so if they choose to close winning accounts so be it. Just stop denying it.
I saw other comments in this thread about throttling. 100% they do it.
Maybe 2 years ago a friend and I spotted some golf bets that arbed between smarkets and betfair.
He did a few... Stakes taken on smarkets and then instantly available again.
I did some... Stakes disappeared almost immediately.
From time to time we check it out on some markets....and it's always the same. He gets stakes matched within seconds. I either see all the liquidity disappear or I get a few pound matched every 5 mins or so.
It is completely obvious they are in done way sharing customer data with other parties.
Undeniable
And probably illegal.
Id like to see Jason Truss deny that one.
They will close your account if you hit a good run.... But they will just quote clause 2.10
So they don't have to justify it
Jason.... Ive emailed you and would appreciate a reply.
-
- Posts: 1
- Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2022 9:00 am
I too had my account closed on 15th September with the same message of 'because we say so'.. I was one of the earliest to sign up and have turned over huge amounts and paid untold amounts of commission over the years. There were markets where I was the only one taking other customers bets as the Smarkets 'trader' wouldn't get involved and offered nothing. Without my trading I'm sure some of the customer base would have gone elsewhere especially in the early days. I reduced my trading after the 2018 changes due to the limits applied but now they have finally gone down the route of every betting business today i.e. no winners allowed. Jason - you have not revolutionized betting you are part of the herd.
That and the fact they are active in their own markets. Same problem with Matchbook to be fair. It's always going to be a long term problem if you are basically winning against the house.stueytrader wrote: ↑Sun Feb 21, 2021 11:31 amI presume the reason most on this forum are anti is because it won't allow Betangel use there?
Fairly obvious and fair criticism.
My account was also closed last week, with no reason given.
I had generated approaching £50,000 worth of commission over the past couple of years, having been put on the 3% Select Tier.
As Euler mentions, I am assuming I was making too much profit in markets seeded by themselves or their market makers. I also had my Matchbook account closed a couple of years ago, with them citing that the reason my account was closed was to protect their market makers.
I had generated approaching £50,000 worth of commission over the past couple of years, having been put on the 3% Select Tier.
As Euler mentions, I am assuming I was making too much profit in markets seeded by themselves or their market makers. I also had my Matchbook account closed a couple of years ago, with them citing that the reason my account was closed was to protect their market makers.
- wearthefoxhat
- Posts: 3219
- Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2018 9:55 am
Where do you go next?Stats101 wrote: ↑Sat Sep 24, 2022 9:59 amMy account was also closed last week, with no reason given.
I had generated approaching £50,000 worth of commission over the past couple of years, having been put on the 3% Select Tier.
As Euler mentions, I am assuming I was making too much profit in markets seeded by themselves or their market makers. I also had my Matchbook account closed a couple of years ago, with them citing that the reason my account was closed was to protect their market makers.