Betdaq safer gambling
Commissioneightbo wrote: ↑Thu Jul 11, 2024 11:22 pmPerhaps mirror is a better word (although xcopy is a technical term to duplicate in mass from A to B). This isn't a company personality competition, though. It's an objective assessment of your customer's ability to make money in different places. You want to attract more retail volume but in 2016 you started charging customers higher comms rates, which essentially signalled to most retail regulars that lower comms rate was no longer a reason to switch Exchanges. Retail volume doesn't come with ad campaigns, we know the option exists already. Longer-term retail customers need cash incentives and an established level of trust. You need to understand that edge/profitability of many strategies on Betfair is LOWER on Betdaq when executed identically. So you're already at a disadvantage and leveling the comms game with Betfair results in being less attractive at neutral.
A couple market makers supplying big margins/spreads helps but essentially makes Betdaq similar to a bookmaker.
To increase turnover at your exchange you need to understand all levels of customer and leverage that to create a competitive environment whereby the price available is consistently better than other places be it bookmaker or exchange. Retail customers who bet for fun, while they may be a large % of retail customers, if you looked at volume, you'd probably find most volume as a % comes from the minority of winning retail accounts. As such, I'd argue your most logical play is to lower comms to attract more retail-level market makers, as I'm sure in many markets your current market makers can be easily undercut. As more people fight for the most competitive price, you'll naturally end up with more liquidity on both sides as both sides meet at a 1T spread. With large cash available at a 1T spread, it'll then mean it's now worth it to place bets on Betdaq first due to lower comms e.g. a 20% BF comms customer who trades £5000 stakes back and forth to generate a profit will place their bets on Betdaq instead if Betdaq has the cash available with a better comms rate, but if your market maker is only offering £5000 at 1.96 (lay) + £5000 @ 2.04 (back) with only £50s at 1.97/1.98/1.99/2.00, then they're going to stay on Betfair even at 20% comms, because it's better to put £5000 through at 2.00/2.02 multiple times and then pay 20% comms on your generated market total than it is to enter for £5000 at 1.96 and then lay at 2.02. Forget comms, you're not even in a profit in the first place.
Getting back on topic, here's what I meany by mirroring/xcopying (but focus on the behaviour, not the terminology)
Much as ikky said — essentially if you pulled the same market up on BF & BD you often observed a direct copy of price movement e.g. 1.59/1.60 becomes 1.60/1.61 on BF then milliseconds later someone lays the 1.60 on betdaq assuming it's now value (as BF mkts historically are roughly efficient).
The problem existed when price was neutral, you'd get less matched on your limit order on Betdaq. So as a trader, using our 1.59/1.60 which then upticks as an example, if I've already backed at 1.65 earlier and am trying to hede my positions by offering a lay at 1.59, when price actually gets to 1.59/1.60, volume (back bets) would often hit 1.59 on Betfair and your position would be closed, but at the exact time, there was nothing on Betdaq, so offering liquidity there was pointless — majority of times you only got matched on your lay at 1.59 5ms after price became 1.58/1.59 on Betfair, at which time your 1.59 lay offer was now very likely -EV. As such the same positions made less on Betdaq than Betfair, so for any 2% comms customers, once again you make less.
Again, I last looked years ago, not sure how things look nowadays but unless volume is arriving first at Betdaq, there isn't much incentive for us small/middle fish to be focused there. Understand that volume offered is not the same as volume taken, you can have 1,000,000 market makers or 1 market maker, if they all offer high margins it won't attract many market orders at the immediately available current price. Thus, you need to bridge the gap and incentivise people to offer smaller and smaller margins until the available price and liquidity are superior to alternative places, then you will definitely see large increases in volume.
But who knows, maybe it's more efficient to charge your winning customers higher comms, and sacrifice a significant amount of volume. Probably some balance like 3-4% to all customers while abolishing all higher comms rates for every customer would be a winning move in the long term (excl. relevant Australian markets).
As you seem to be the official account for Betdaq, here's an additional useful idea to take advantage of one of Betfair's weak points:
...The problem: BF have terrible internal/external news flow. With so many markets daily, there are often problems or confusing settlements, even if you understand the market rules perfectly. If you want to figure out what happened, you have to go to their staff and wait for them to pass the baton until it reaches the correct team who can then relay that information back to you in isolation (there may be many other customers in separate chat queues wanting to know the same thing). Not only is it inefficient internally, it's also time-consuming and creates confusion for a customer to have to go out of their way to figure out what is happening/was happening. If the amount is significant, they will also likely hold off on placing any more bets before reaching a conclusion on their investigation (= reduced site wide turnover)
...Proposed solution: Create a landing page such as Betdaq.𝘤𝘰𝘮/incidents with Market ID/Name, Issue description, and settlement outcome/reasoning. Have the relevant internal team update the incidents page for viewing. Examples would be settlements that were then reversed, void bet reasoning, significant settlement delays, and so on.
I'd suggest to expand such a page further to encompass other teams such as currently known technical issues along with the current resolution actions being taken, as well as general company-wide news updates. For example if you change your policies for whatever reason, instead of emailing each individual to let them know and hoping they read it, provide the information on a single portal so that the customer can see all previous changes in one place at one time, rather than scattered across 100s of emails. If you need to put out information to select customers e.g. Region-based, simply reference the account viewing the page to filter as needed.
No company is perfect these days, and there's always room in a dynamic environment to make changes.
If your company's vision is to have the highest volume, I'd suggest seeking to understand and evaluate at a finer resolution: the different types of customer, what they seek in a sports exchange market, and how that will then affect volume. Work backwards from there to identify which customer types you need to attract and in which order, while considering that changes to any particular customer type will also reshape the shape of the market.
Incentives such as "First UK race Commission Free everyday" and a commission-free first month of trading are simply excellent, so well done to the relevant teams coming up with those ideas and keep them coming, but the original manifesto (which is still up today) has been contradicted for 8 years and counting, overall more effort should be placed into the consistency and reliability of the company, although this will be markedly less impactful than working towards a more useful market structure.
Betdaq wrote:All customers will benefit from Punting Equality – pledges by BETDAQ to keep commission low and check this out…. the first UK race will be commission free every day – you can’t get lower than that !
The manifesto includes no horrible ‘Premium Charges’, more liquidity, events and markets on the site where winners are always welcome.
I am going to start with the commission point as I need some clarity on this?
99.9% of our customer base are on 2% commission or even 0% commission. I think people underestimate how much the race to the bottom with commission has impacted Betfair and Betdaq. This race to the bottom was caused by the hybrid exchanges and their ability to attract losing volume with their 0% models.
I am a little unsure what commission model you are referencing as I believe 2% on winning bets is a difficult enough proposition for exchanges to make profit on.
There is a lot more of your points that I will respond to but I dont want to rush them and your message requires a lot of thought.
"A couple market makers supplying big margins/spreads helps but essentially makes Betdaq similar to a bookmaker." - I totally disagree with this point. There are more than a couple of market makers out there and they do more than offer big margin/spreads. I mean look at what the hybrid exchanges can achieve with one market maker.
"To increase turnover at your exchange you need to understand all levels of customer and leverage that to create a competitive environment whereby the price available is consistently better than other places be it bookmaker or exchange."
I agree and disagree with this. Generally speaking in the markets that see the most volume you will very rarely see much of a difference between any of the exchanges as the markets are so efficient and institutional arbers will snap up the arb.
"Retail customers who bet for fun, while they may be a large % of retail customers, if you looked at volume, you'd probably find most volume as a % comes from the minority of winning retail accounts."
No, the vast majority comes from institutional market makers.
"Again, I last looked years ago, not sure how things look nowadays but unless volume is arriving first at Betdaq, there isn't much incentive for us small/middle fish to be focused there."
Ok, I take your point somewhat but unless one moves the other wont. This is why I am trying to suggest people see what volume they think makes sense to move and pushing those on premium charge to move.
"BF have terrible internal/external news flow."
I really like this idea although id make an argument it is more of a Betfair issue considering our customer service is really good and very quick. Il chat internally about this although in reality the majority of the time nothing will be on the page.
"No company is perfect these days, and there's always room in a dynamic environment to make changes.
If your company's vision is to have the highest volume, I'd suggest seeking to understand and evaluate at a finer resolution: the different types of customer, what they seek in a sports exchange market, and how that will then affect volume. Work backwards from there to identify which customer types you need to attract and in which order, while considering that changes to any particular customer type will also reshape the shape of the market."
I think our biggest challenge is attracting the arbing groups in the UK. The problem is the hybrid exchanges have had a monopoly on this volume with 5+ years now. I would say that a large part of my role was to attract this volume and it is going very well although the biggest problem is competing as they can pay more for users based on their model. It is almost a loss leader for us to try and feed the winners in the ecosystem.
Trading Groups - Bet Angel etc... This group is tougher to break. I mean I would consider a 1% commission if that attracted users but the feedback was that this is not all that important. I am all ears if people can make suggestions.
I would be happy to jump on a call with you as over and back on this is pretty difficult. If I missed anything important let me know.
"To increase turnover at your exchange you need to understand all levels of customer and leverage that to create a competitive environment whereby the price available is consistently better than other places be it bookmaker or exchange."
I agree and disagree with this. Generally speaking in the markets that see the most volume you will very rarely see much of a difference between any of the exchanges as the markets are so efficient and institutional arbers will snap up the arb.
"Retail customers who bet for fun, while they may be a large % of retail customers, if you looked at volume, you'd probably find most volume as a % comes from the minority of winning retail accounts."
No, the vast majority comes from institutional market makers.
"Again, I last looked years ago, not sure how things look nowadays but unless volume is arriving first at Betdaq, there isn't much incentive for us small/middle fish to be focused there."
Ok, I take your point somewhat but unless one moves the other wont. This is why I am trying to suggest people see what volume they think makes sense to move and pushing those on premium charge to move.
"BF have terrible internal/external news flow."
I really like this idea although id make an argument it is more of a Betfair issue considering our customer service is really good and very quick. Il chat internally about this although in reality the majority of the time nothing will be on the page.
"No company is perfect these days, and there's always room in a dynamic environment to make changes.
If your company's vision is to have the highest volume, I'd suggest seeking to understand and evaluate at a finer resolution: the different types of customer, what they seek in a sports exchange market, and how that will then affect volume. Work backwards from there to identify which customer types you need to attract and in which order, while considering that changes to any particular customer type will also reshape the shape of the market."
I think our biggest challenge is attracting the arbing groups in the UK. The problem is the hybrid exchanges have had a monopoly on this volume with 5+ years now. I would say that a large part of my role was to attract this volume and it is going very well although the biggest problem is competing as they can pay more for users based on their model. It is almost a loss leader for us to try and feed the winners in the ecosystem.
Trading Groups - Bet Angel etc... This group is tougher to break. I mean I would consider a 1% commission if that attracted users but the feedback was that this is not all that important. I am all ears if people can make suggestions.
I would be happy to jump on a call with you as over and back on this is pretty difficult. If I missed anything important let me know.
"To get Betdaq truly ahead of rival exchanges, it needs to attract liquidity, and the present interface whilst slightly different to competitors, its not enough to stand out."megarain wrote: ↑Fri Jul 12, 2024 12:38 pmThe above was a very thoughtfull reply.
To get Betdaq truly ahead of rival exchanges, it needs to attract liquidity, and the present interface whilst slightly different to competitors, its not enough to stand out.
In general, I like offers which dont match existing prices being processed with no in-running delay, and also approve of the longer 7 secs I/R delay on some sports.
A game changer IMHO would be this.
In-running markets have the following characteristics - lets use a 2 runner market, cricket for example.
Team A is 1.70
Team B is 2.4
On betdaq, there is 1.68 to back, 1.71 to lay.
Nothing really happens until a market moving event happens - either a 4/6 or wicket etc.
Then, all market participants who have a fast feed bash the keyboard to try take advantage of the stale prices,
requesting say 1.5x if the event favours Team A.
They normally get nothing, but just occasionally someone leaves up a stale price.
In todays technical environment, it should be possible to measure how many bets per second, on average is processed by the market. Lets say its 5.
When a market moving event happens, maybe 50 users try to take advantage.
I would like to see the following :
If a user wanting an irrelevent ammount hit a stale price, it should be allowed thru, at the price requested.
Any decent sized stake, should be frozen/rejected if the average bets/second measure was exceeded by a given percentage.
This would give market makers confidence that once markets are liquid, they will not be picked off by snipers.
I hope I have explained this clearly - if not, I can clarify - but basically its a means by which fast feed users cannot hit stale prices. They can still market make - which is what you want.
I disagree. I could manufacture liquidity very easily. It would just mean we become less of a true exchange model.
We have the foundations of what is needed with our open API and market makers. What we need is retail flow for these market makers to post more liquidity and come into markets early and to be incentivised to add new markets and sports.
I understand your in running point but there are smarter people than me who can digest this better and perhaps pick more holes in it than I can. I will discuss with them.
I don’t think any exchange user cares where the liquidity comes from. If you really have levels of
liquidity you could activate, IMHO it should be implemented.
The current situation has existed for months and it’s going nowhere.
Trying be constructive I would suggest you try and trade a cricket market on Betdaq, having the Betfair API open on a separate window.
You will see 90% of the time currently, bets you want matched are only matched when its either an arb with Betfair, or are bidding for 1.63, and its 1.63 offered on Betfair.
I live with the current situation and often offer1- 2c arbs with Betfair. This can only be tolerated for so long.
liquidity you could activate, IMHO it should be implemented.
The current situation has existed for months and it’s going nowhere.
Trying be constructive I would suggest you try and trade a cricket market on Betdaq, having the Betfair API open on a separate window.
You will see 90% of the time currently, bets you want matched are only matched when its either an arb with Betfair, or are bidding for 1.63, and its 1.63 offered on Betfair.
I live with the current situation and often offer1- 2c arbs with Betfair. This can only be tolerated for so long.
If you create a liquidity model that really just allows losers long term is that good? I see how it is beneficial for the Outplayed and Oddsmonkey crew, but for anyone else sharp?ikky wrote: ↑Thu Jul 18, 2024 8:19 pmI don’t think any exchange user cares where the liquidity comes from. If you really have levels of
liquidity you could activate, IMHO it should be implemented.
The current situation has existed for months and it’s going nowhere.
Trying be constructive I would suggest you try and trade a cricket market on Betdaq, having the Betfair API open on a separate window.
You will see 90% of the time currently, bets you want matched are only matched when its either an arb with Betfair, or are bidding for 1.63, and its 1.63 offered on Betfair.
I live with the current situation and often offer1- 2c arbs with Betfair. This can only be tolerated for so long.
Cricket is a very bad example I would say as we know there is a lot of cricket liquidity that we have not found a way to reach yet.
Thanks for the reply.
It’s clearly a complex issue and unfortunately I don’t have enough exposure to sports other than cricket, so can’t really add anything constructive .
I will try broaden my activity and comment in a few months.
I really like your engagement. It must help eventually, and it’s a long road.
Best wishes
It’s clearly a complex issue and unfortunately I don’t have enough exposure to sports other than cricket, so can’t really add anything constructive .
I will try broaden my activity and comment in a few months.
I really like your engagement. It must help eventually, and it’s a long road.
Best wishes
It's a chicken and egg situation with liquidity.
When I turned up to Betdaq in 2008 there wasn't anything on Racing but I had a go. Then seriously in 2011. Back when I started, Betdaq had almost no market share in the pre-off markets. But if you look at Ascot 2024, they were consistently 20-25% of Betfair.
I always felt it was part of my responsibility to use Betdaq, even if there wasn't much there, just so it kick starts the process. Besides, I operated on Betfair when there was no liquidity. So I know that something can come out of nothing. There is always a strategy to use, even in low liquidity markets.
I don't trade on SMarkets or Matchbook because I'm sharp enough to pick off their market makers, which causes them problems. So Betdaq and Betfair are really the only places I can go to trade properly without this issue.
The problem with InPlay stuff is that Betfair have been quite smart in the way they manage these markets. Having a bet delay that is long enough to stop all but the most committed abusing it, means that they can retained liquidity at moderate cost to the ecosystem. Something that's almost impossible to compete with.
When I turned up to Betdaq in 2008 there wasn't anything on Racing but I had a go. Then seriously in 2011. Back when I started, Betdaq had almost no market share in the pre-off markets. But if you look at Ascot 2024, they were consistently 20-25% of Betfair.
I always felt it was part of my responsibility to use Betdaq, even if there wasn't much there, just so it kick starts the process. Besides, I operated on Betfair when there was no liquidity. So I know that something can come out of nothing. There is always a strategy to use, even in low liquidity markets.
I don't trade on SMarkets or Matchbook because I'm sharp enough to pick off their market makers, which causes them problems. So Betdaq and Betfair are really the only places I can go to trade properly without this issue.
The problem with InPlay stuff is that Betfair have been quite smart in the way they manage these markets. Having a bet delay that is long enough to stop all but the most committed abusing it, means that they can retained liquidity at moderate cost to the ecosystem. Something that's almost impossible to compete with.
Another contact from the Betdaq safer gambling team.
Last was in July - since then I have made no deposits, withdrawn at least 2500 in the last 90 days, and they want to know if I am
happy with my gambling etc.
I would like to know if they are happy with their brain cells.
Last was in July - since then I have made no deposits, withdrawn at least 2500 in the last 90 days, and they want to know if I am
happy with my gambling etc.
I would like to know if they are happy with their brain cells.
You're wrong here. The UKGC do not accept us ignoring winners. The Responsible team look at a lot of other metrics and it is not just about winning.megarain wrote: ↑Mon Nov 11, 2024 12:12 pmAnother contact from the Betdaq safer gambling team.
Last was in July - since then I have made no deposits, withdrawn at least 2500 in the last 90 days, and they want to know if I am
happy with my gambling etc.
I would like to know if they are happy with their brain cells.
Ok, my mistake.
I have withdrawn my funds - maybe in haste, but have better things to do.
GL
I have withdrawn my funds - maybe in haste, but have better things to do.
GL