+1spreadbetting wrote: ↑Tue Jun 05, 2018 11:33 amThey're obviously in a catch 22 situation having to appease their market makers with restrictions to the API
Which is why I have doubts about them posing a serious threat to Betfair.
Smarkets public API
-
northbound
- Posts: 737
- Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2017 11:22 pm
Which is why I have doubts about them posing a serious threat to Betfair.
Yeah that would be interesting to know if they void the other way (in practice), ie a customer making a mistake and the market maker benefiting.
Also if the market maker complains then the event happens and the customer loses do they void it or keep quiet.
Also if the market maker complains then the event happens and the customer loses do they void it or keep quiet.
Reading between the lines I'm beginning to see it as;
If someone takes a market makers price which they deem to be 15% outside a fair market price (ie, the market maker didn't remove their money quick enough following news or they simply offered the wrong odds in the first place) then the result goes against them up to 60 mins afterwards the bets can be voided if they notify Smarkets
For a punter, this means they don't know if they have gotten a value price and will get their winnings or if its a step to much value taken from a MM and wont know if it will be voided till around 2hrs after the result
For a trader its an even bigger nightmare, you could close a position to find your opening side later voided or a closed position voided leaving a sizeable open position standing - in short, you also don't know where you're at for certain till around 2 hours after the result
So you can use Smarkets but any price you take not in line with whats available on bf at the time has a good chance of being voided if it belonged to a MM and it was far enough off the BF price or it changed suddenly and the MM was too slow?
Hope I'm wrong otherwise, it defeats the purpose of being an exchange - so some further clarification would help
If someone takes a market makers price which they deem to be 15% outside a fair market price (ie, the market maker didn't remove their money quick enough following news or they simply offered the wrong odds in the first place) then the result goes against them up to 60 mins afterwards the bets can be voided if they notify Smarkets
For a punter, this means they don't know if they have gotten a value price and will get their winnings or if its a step to much value taken from a MM and wont know if it will be voided till around 2hrs after the result
For a trader its an even bigger nightmare, you could close a position to find your opening side later voided or a closed position voided leaving a sizeable open position standing - in short, you also don't know where you're at for certain till around 2 hours after the result
So you can use Smarkets but any price you take not in line with whats available on bf at the time has a good chance of being voided if it belonged to a MM and it was far enough off the BF price or it changed suddenly and the MM was too slow?
Hope I'm wrong otherwise, it defeats the purpose of being an exchange - so some further clarification would help
You guys are really confusing me. This isn't anywhere close to a catch 22 situation.
The erroneous trade policy is Standard Operating Procedure for any financial exchange. When I traded on NASDAQ trades got busted with some regularity. It governs how mistakes are handled, whether by a market maker or customer. From the point of view of the exchange, it doesn't matter who the counterparties are.
This policy kicks in in very very very rare circumstances. It's not a policy that anywhere near lets a market maker cherry pick and bust trades it doesn't like.
I'm happy to host a conference call if 1+ of you are interested. You can bring your best dragons den questions and I can practice for my internal townhall meetings when I get grilled by my staff
The erroneous trade policy is Standard Operating Procedure for any financial exchange. When I traded on NASDAQ trades got busted with some regularity. It governs how mistakes are handled, whether by a market maker or customer. From the point of view of the exchange, it doesn't matter who the counterparties are.
This policy kicks in in very very very rare circumstances. It's not a policy that anywhere near lets a market maker cherry pick and bust trades it doesn't like.
I'm happy to host a conference call if 1+ of you are interested. You can bring your best dragons den questions and I can practice for my internal townhall meetings when I get grilled by my staff
This isn't a financial exchange, it's a sports betting exchange and it certainly doesn't happen on Betfair.
If I can lose £5,000 because I didn't know that an opening or exit trade is going to be voided, even if it is in very very very rare circumstances, I simply wouldn't have anything to do with that exchange.
Why isn't it a financial exchange? It trades event future contracts. Also what difference does it make sports vs finance?Derek27 wrote: ↑Wed Jun 06, 2018 9:07 pmThis isn't a financial exchange, it's a sports betting exchange and it certainly doesn't happen on Betfair.
If I can lose £5,000 because I didn't know that an opening or exit trade is going to be voided, even if it is in very very very rare circumstances, I simply wouldn't have anything to do with that exchange.
Why would you "lose" £5k? This happens so rarely. It's constructed to protect customers, not injure them.
I'm sorry, I thought you would have a basic understanding of how trading works!!
Nobody wants to lose £5K AT ALL, the fact that it rarely happens is no consolation!!!
A simple example: Place a £400 back bet on a horse at 13.0. Lay the horse at 9.0 for £577.78 for a £177.78 profit.
Now, if on one of the very very rare occasions the £400 back bet was voided I could potentially lose my liability on the lay bet of £4,622.24.
Trading is all about spotting bargains - it's possible to lay a horse at half the price you backed it at for a 100% profit. 15% is a very small margin to be applying this policy.
It could be argued that any bet that loses was a mistake/error - that's the whole point of betting, taking advantage of other peoples errors.
Last edited by Derek27 on Thu Jun 07, 2018 3:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
You may trust your current government but what about the next one? You don't want the government having too much power even if you trust them, because of the precedent it sets.
Similar thing with exchanges.
Smarkets may have your best interests at heart, but what about Smarkets in 5 years time, or the next exchange to come along? That is fundamentally the problem, even if you trust Smarkets to use it reasonably.
Similar thing with exchanges.
Smarkets may have your best interests at heart, but what about Smarkets in 5 years time, or the next exchange to come along? That is fundamentally the problem, even if you trust Smarkets to use it reasonably.
-
spreadbetting
- Posts: 3140
- Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2010 8:06 pm
I'd imagine it depends on the outcome of the race and who backers/layers were
-
spreadbetting
- Posts: 3140
- Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2010 8:06 pm
I'd guess you assumed wrong, LinusP, this is apparently in line with Standard Operating Procedure for any financial exchange where implied chance does not occur.
The notion of "fair market price" on a betting exchange is ridiculous, and to set it at +-15% completely goes against the basis of exchange betting where you put up a price and if someone fancies it they take it. There's no fancy API for punters to fire bets all over the place so it'd be easy to code some javascript to the site to warn bettors if the odds were +-15% of the current price or even simply reject them at the backend. But then again I doubt the policy is there to protect punters. The more bookmaker protections that gets added into the site such as palpable rules, ringfenced access etc, the more it becomes obvious the site is simply a private bookmakers with the ability to lay bets.
At the end of the day if you're active on your own exchange you're always going to be at risk of being caught short especially if you're relying on 'outside' sources to feed your prices.
The notion of "fair market price" on a betting exchange is ridiculous, and to set it at +-15% completely goes against the basis of exchange betting where you put up a price and if someone fancies it they take it. There's no fancy API for punters to fire bets all over the place so it'd be easy to code some javascript to the site to warn bettors if the odds were +-15% of the current price or even simply reject them at the backend. But then again I doubt the policy is there to protect punters. The more bookmaker protections that gets added into the site such as palpable rules, ringfenced access etc, the more it becomes obvious the site is simply a private bookmakers with the ability to lay bets.
At the end of the day if you're active on your own exchange you're always going to be at risk of being caught short especially if you're relying on 'outside' sources to feed your prices.
Christ, it gets worse
https://help.smarkets.com/hc/en-gb/arti ... ets-PolicyIn addition to recent execution prices and prices available on other platforms at the time the bet was matched, Smarkets may also consider a number of additional factors when deciding whether a bet is clearly erroneous.
These include, but are not limited to, system malfunction, the volatility of the contract, new information becoming available in the public domain that may significantly alter the price (such as team news for a football match), whether the result of the bet had been unconditionally decided before a complaint was raised, whether betting on the market was recently halted and resumed, the start price of the selection and if the complainant had taken any steps to limit their exposure to the erroneous bet.
I suspect Vide0star has experience of financial markets but no experience of betting or trading horse racing and doesn't understand the game we're playing.
The bottom line is that trading can involve putting £2000 on the table for a guaranteed £10. Nobody would do it if you're actually putting £2000 at risk to make £10, which is what you would be doing with each trade on Smarkets. It only has to go wrong once to wipe out more than a months profits and the uncertainty makes Smarkets not viable.
The bottom line is that trading can involve putting £2000 on the table for a guaranteed £10. Nobody would do it if you're actually putting £2000 at risk to make £10, which is what you would be doing with each trade on Smarkets. It only has to go wrong once to wipe out more than a months profits and the uncertainty makes Smarkets not viable.