I just received this, which I felt was quite funny.
I won 14k off them in June and didn't hear anything.
Have lost 6k in the last week.
I have sent all the relevant docs etc .. (I have not deposited in the last 2 months - indeed have withdrawn a fair bit)
Betdaq safer gambling
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Got a quick reply .. looks all good.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
I replied ..
1. I am comfortable with my levels of gambling.
2. I have an investment portfolio of about xxxx in stocks and xxxx in property. Gambling is part of this.
3. I study relevant cricket/horse racing data when making selections.
1. I am comfortable with my levels of gambling.
2. I have an investment portfolio of about xxxx in stocks and xxxx in property. Gambling is part of this.
3. I study relevant cricket/horse racing data when making selections.
I am on 2% comm.
I find the markets reasonable - sure a lot is copied liquidity, but no PC forgives a lot.
I also genuinely enjoy corresponding with the helpdesk - they are responsive and will admit to making an error.
That can't be said about the exchange who cannot be named.
It is frustrating to offer prices that have flashed as being matched lower elsewhere, but its swings and roundabouts.
If you tailor your expectations/strategies, its still more than useful.
I find the markets reasonable - sure a lot is copied liquidity, but no PC forgives a lot.
I also genuinely enjoy corresponding with the helpdesk - they are responsive and will admit to making an error.
That can't be said about the exchange who cannot be named.
It is frustrating to offer prices that have flashed as being matched lower elsewhere, but its swings and roundabouts.
If you tailor your expectations/strategies, its still more than useful.
-
Crazyskier
- Posts: 1269
- Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2016 6:36 pm
You're talking about smarkets right?megarain wrote: ↑Mon Jul 08, 2024 4:29 pmI am on 2% comm.
I find the markets reasonable - sure a lot is copied liquidity, but no PC forgives a lot.
I also genuinely enjoy corresponding with the helpdesk - they are responsive and will admit to making an error.
That can't be said about the exchange who cannot be named.
It is frustrating to offer prices that have flashed as being matched lower elsewhere, but its swings and roundabouts.
If you tailor your expectations/strategies, its still more than useful.
Jk, much love for the feedback
I find the word copy Betfair slightly funny. Can I ask for an explanation of what you mean by this?
There are many markets on Betdaq which have v little liquidity until there is a 1 or 2 tick arb with Betfair, then a bot steps up.
Have a look at some in-running cricket or tennis markets.
The vast majority of market makers operate on both Betfair and Betdaq. they likely employ slightly different strategies with each. I would make an argument that the other exchanges in the UK are a better example of copying Betfair.
Im not disputing what you see but ultimately we have the firepower in market makers to take on Betfair but we just need the retail volume which is a challenge. Retail volume would include all the potential customers on here.
Perhaps 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.
The 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.
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.