Smarkets's skullduggery

Post Reply
User avatar
Euler
Posts: 20431
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 1:39 pm
Location: Bet Angel HQ
Contact:

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.
xitian
Posts: 457
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2011 2:08 pm

Euler wrote:
Wed Nov 14, 2018 9:09 am
vide0star wrote:
Tue Nov 13, 2018 11:03 pm
There'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.
In 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.

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.
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.

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.
xitian
Posts: 457
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2011 2:08 pm

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).
LinusP
Posts: 1772
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2012 10:45 pm
Contact:

xitian wrote:
Fri Nov 16, 2018 11:18 pm
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).
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.

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?
User avatar
Naffman
Posts: 4714
Joined: Sun Aug 11, 2013 5:46 am

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!
spreadbetting
Posts: 3140
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2010 8:06 pm

Naffman wrote:
Sat Nov 17, 2018 6:00 pm
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!
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.
lizzard
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Nov 30, 2020 6:48 pm

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
stueytrader
Posts: 614
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.
stueytrader
Posts: 614
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.
Post Reply

Return to “Alternative betting exchanges, Smarkets, Matchbook etc.”