Betdaq behaviour

[MarketTrader]

I thought I would have a quick look at Betdaq. And made a small £5 trade on the favourite in the 14:10 at Yarmouth. The back bet was fully matched.

But the lay bet a tick lower was only matched at £4.99. And the unmatched penny was cancelled...!

The report from Betdaq says:

14:04:15.937 Matched £4.99 at 1.49 (£0.01 Unmatched, £4.99 Matched at 1.49)
14:04:15.937 The remaining portion of the order could not be matched and has been cancelled

This is 5 mins before the off.

Has anyone else come across this? I was expecting an unmatched portion to remain in the market. And the price did go lower so would have been matched in a similar situation on Betfair.

So now I have a liability across the market. And because there is no way of tidying up with less than 50p I can't do anything about it and it looks odd. It's only a penny and I'm not worried about that - it's just an unexpected behaviour that just puts me off Betdaq.

[Betdaq]

Dear Market Trader,

If you could please contact our customer service team ([email protected]) and or the api team ([email protected]). We will have no problem into looking into this incident for you.

Kind Regards,
BETDAQ

[MarketTrader]

For anyone interested in the outcome of this I had the following response from Betdaq:

Regarding your query in relation to bet reference xxxxxxxxxx, please note that as the exchange offers several different currencies, your bet may have been matched by a user using USD or EUR. As such, your stake may have been converted in order to match across the exchange, and in the conversion back, it was brought down by £0.01, which displayed as cancelled on your account. However, please note that the final settlement of this bet was not affected by this rounding convention.

[LeTiss]

I'm interested in Betdaq having replied

It would be nice if they replied to other threads, with regards to the improvements we feel Betdaq need to make.

[Iron]

I'm interested in Betdaq having replied

It would be nice if they replied to other threads, with regards to the improvements we feel Betdaq need to make.

I agree.

If anyone wants to make any suggestions to Betdaq, the email of their marketing director, Shane McLaughlin, is [email protected].

Jeff

[jimrobo]

I emailed them yesterday asking them about their bet response time as I have always got between 200-500 ms which is incredibly slow and anytime I have attempted to trade betdaq it's always an issue. They replied quite quickly and said 200 is normal. When I said I get 60 from bet fair they just said they were the same as betfair and I was wrong which annoyed me somewhat as I think I have been on betfair long enough to understand how the market operates on my software.

[Euler]

On my local connection I get 80ms or so on Betfair and around 130ms on Betdaq. VPS is obviously a lot faster.

[Betdaq]

Ferru123,

You do not require to send any feedback directly to any of our Directors. I can confirm that all channels are currently being recorded, be your comments through our Forum, Helpdesk, Api Team. These are being compiled and will form the discussion and action plan over the coming week.

Jimrobo & Euler

Regarding calls times, I believe that seperate discussions have occured with individuals regarding tmes. I will endeavour to source a company message on this.

LeTiss & All,

Regarding responding to other threads, we obviously do not have the capability to track all threads in other forums. We will look to reply to all questions asked in this forum outside those with personal details.


Kind Regards,
BETDAQ

[MarketTrader]

From my location (just north of Nottingham) I get around 60 - 70ms on both comms numbers (retrieving odds & bets) with Betfair.

I get 120ms on the retrieving odds number and around 350ms on the retrieving bets numbers.

Dynamic tuner set to 10 on both.

And this is using SKY ADSL broadband.

So Betdaq would seem to be slower.

[Iron]

Ferru123,

You do not require to send any feedback directly to any of our Directors.

In my experience, company directors are often shielded from reality by staff who are eager to give the impression that everything's going great, so I prefer to make my feedback known to the men and women at the top...

Jeff

[nomadic]

In my experience, company directors are often shielded from reality by staff who are eager to give the impression that everything's going great

I completely agree Jeff. I in fact just recently had an extremely frustrating dealing with Betdaq that I would certainly hope no director of any company would condone.

I log into my Betdaq account for the first time in weeks, and get a message saying my account is locked and I must contact support to unlock it. They tell me I need to send them additional identification. I tell them that I already completed the KYC process 2 years ago, and ask why they need additional information at this time. BD: "Because your account has been flagged by our compliance department." Me: "Why has it been flagged?" BD: "Because they need to verify your account." Me: "I already sent you sufficient information to verify my account. I completed the KYC process. I'm not sending you any additional highly personal information without you giving me a reason. So why is it that you need it?" BD: "Because your account has been flagged by our compliance department".

And on and on in circles it goes. Finally I acquiesce, and agree to send them additional information which matches exactly with a sample they sent to me of what they said would satisfy their requirement... only to have them come back and tell me that it is still not sufficient. In the end, I get an email from a manager saying "We are not obliged to provide a specific reason for these checks, and indeed we will not be doing so in this case". Their justification in the end essentially fell back upon the legally questionable catch-all phrase in their T&C which states ever so broadly and vaguely "we shall be entitled to demand... any other information at any time in the future".

But perhaps this kind of attitude goes all the way up to the top... I don't know. Perhaps it would be worth a mail to the director Jeff provided. Betfair may have proven itself to be Betunfair time and again, but can this kind of company (Betdaq) really be taken as a serious alternative? What kind of future does a company have that would prefer not to have your business at all rather than simply disclose the *reason* why they want additional personal information from you?? I get the feeling it is indicative of company-wide mismanagement...

[jimrobo]

On my local connection I get 80ms or so on Betfair and around 130ms on Betdaq. VPS is obviously a lot faster.

I've actually had a pretty positive response from betdaq on this by someone on the team.

No doubt they have probably contacted you already regarding it but things are looking promising. I'll email you what I got back anyway rather than posting it as a public reply as i don;t know whether it was meant to be in confidence or general advice they sent me.

[Euler]

Betdaq have been far more response to me than Betfair ever have so I can't fault them. But obviously I'm a bit different from your average joe so that is the bit that is more important in the grand scheme of things.

[superfrank]

what's the server (.com/.co.uk) all about at login?

[freddy]

You have to log in to the one you signed up to when you opened your account.

don't know why, a bit daft if you ask me