Peter posted a matrix of the Murray match and i have plotted common entry and exit levels in a similar way but can't get my head around the matrix.
Am i right in thinking that the set criteria is met only 5 times when the the sets are equal and 26 times when Murray is losing by 2 sets?
Peter's Blog Today - Murray Matrix
I read Peter's blog on courtsiding with great interest. Tennis is getting bad press with this, but I'd be interested to know how many other sports are affected.
I disagree with Peter here, I don't think it's cheating at all. They are simply taking advantage of the technology available. Yes, they are making money at the expense of honest traders, but that's exactly what Peter does himself, albeit not by trying to beat clocks.
The ATP are being very active in tackling these courtsiders, but seem less enthusiastic in tackling the Russian mafia. The farcical betting patterns on Russian tournaments towards the end of the year suggest serious dishonesty, but that appears fine with the ATP
I disagree with Peter here, I don't think it's cheating at all. They are simply taking advantage of the technology available. Yes, they are making money at the expense of honest traders, but that's exactly what Peter does himself, albeit not by trying to beat clocks.
The ATP are being very active in tackling these courtsiders, but seem less enthusiastic in tackling the Russian mafia. The farcical betting patterns on Russian tournaments towards the end of the year suggest serious dishonesty, but that appears fine with the ATP
Sets on the left are number of sets down would be, on the top is the number of games, in the middle the number of ways this could occur in the range of odds we are targeting.buyshirts wrote:Peter posted a matrix of the Murray match and i have plotted common entry and exit levels in a similar way but can't get my head around the matrix.
Am i right in thinking that the set criteria is met only 5 times when the the sets are equal and 26 times when Murray is losing by 2 sets?
If I could get an order into a pre-off racing market ahead of anybody else knowing what the next move would be that's quite an advantage. Unfortunately I don't have that advantage. The majority of my orders are offers, so I don't even have control on direction or if they fill.LeTiss 4pm wrote:I disagree with Peter here, I don't think it's cheating at all.
I'm not making a judgement on whether it is fair or not, that's up to individuals to decide. But there is no doubt they suck a lot of money out of the market because they can out-anticipate everybody else. Their risk profile is higher now though because so many people are competing for the same peice of pie. You only need to look at the inplay racing markets to see that.
Despite saying it's unfair, Peter says on his blog he then proceeded to happily do it himself:
"Having watched for some time, I went off to return later for the singles match. This time I was armed myself to see if I was able to beat the clock beaters. I thought that an event staged in London may prove trickier than one elsewhere in the world. But to my surprise I was able to nip in ahead of others in the market and courtside. It just took a bit of intelligence and technology to figure out how to do it."
"Having watched for some time, I went off to return later for the singles match. This time I was armed myself to see if I was able to beat the clock beaters. I thought that an event staged in London may prove trickier than one elsewhere in the world. But to my surprise I was able to nip in ahead of others in the market and courtside. It just took a bit of intelligence and technology to figure out how to do it."
That's a bit unfair, trying to work out how they do it is completely different from actually doing it for real! The only reason I did it was to understand the detail of what was being done and even then I only used a few quid as a test.
-
CaerMyrddin
- Posts: 1271
- Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 10:47 am
I reckon betfair won't change the delay. If someone is making money, then betfair is making money and that's all that matters.
Apologies PW if you thought my post was slightly confrontational, it wasn't meant to be. I'm just making the point, that all us traders make money from other people's mistakes or naivety. The courtsiders have a definite edge, yes, but all profitable traders are clearly seeing something that unsuccessful traders are not.
And don't forget, the reason we pay £150 to BA, is so we have an edge over people who don't. I think the courtsiders deserve more recognition for their ingenuity. They are not trying to influence the result, just manipulating other punters. The bookies have been doing that for generations
And don't forget, the reason we pay £150 to BA, is so we have an edge over people who don't. I think the courtsiders deserve more recognition for their ingenuity. They are not trying to influence the result, just manipulating other punters. The bookies have been doing that for generations
That's OK, I didn't have a problem with your post. I did the blog post to create some debate.
I'm not sure were information advantage, skill, technical and time related advantages sit in the scheme of things. You always hear gamblers, for example, complain about traders but there are plenty of traders that either directly or in-directly create opportunites and / or liquidity for gamblers. Directly through strategy, or indirectly through losses. But I'm not sure that people at an event contribute anything?
I'm not sure were information advantage, skill, technical and time related advantages sit in the scheme of things. You always hear gamblers, for example, complain about traders but there are plenty of traders that either directly or in-directly create opportunites and / or liquidity for gamblers. Directly through strategy, or indirectly through losses. But I'm not sure that people at an event contribute anything?
-
CaerMyrddin
- Posts: 1271
- Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 10:47 am
Tbh, I think we all have something against hoovering, but I think in the end we all do the same, find an edge (or plenty) and exploit it. Personally I'm more comfortable knowing I can look into a market, see how the money is being matched and have a reasonable idea of how it will move. But if I was sitting in a time related advantage all the time (although I do that too) I think I would be a bit anxious with the fact that it might instantly disappear (new rulings, new technology, etc).
Interestingly, you posted on the blog an anti siders strategy, so in the end many things that happen are simply a race to arms, or simply outsmarting others.
In the end, we are all taking someone else's money...
Interestingly, you posted on the blog an anti siders strategy, so in the end many things that happen are simply a race to arms, or simply outsmarting others.
In the end, we are all taking someone else's money...
-
andyfuller
- Posts: 4619
- Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 12:23 pm
My personal opinion has changed on this issue over time.
I used to be against courtsiders (read oncourse for racing which is where my interest lies). But for the last few years I have changed and think they do nothing wrong.
As Peter has said he was able to go to the event and do some courtsiding himself. It is open to all (allowing for ticket allocations/capacity) as long as you have the capital to buy the tickets and get to the event.
My view of it changed when I found out about the use of VPS's, not for inrunning at first but for pre race trading on the horses. I found out about them prior to them becoming what I now call public knowledge, usually when something gets in the wider public domain the edge has gone to some extent. People were using them long before I found out about them not just for their bots but for the manual trading.
Why?
Because it gave a time advantage mainly. It meant if I and a VPS user both went for the same order the VPS user should always beat me to it. There are other advantages in using them but I think most users used them because of the reason I found out about them, they had near zero ping time to Betfair.
This imo is no different to courtsiding.
Like courtsiding, VPS's are now in the public domain but like the activity of courtsiding there was a good period where few were aware of its goings on.
Courtsiding has its disadvantages as well as advantages though, for example you can only be in one place at a time. You can't be oncourse at both AYR and Epsom at the same time, so you are limiting your opportunities from that view point.
What I do have an objection to is when Betfair or others claim the delay in placing bets protects punters from the delay in pictures. Yes it offers some degree of protection but it doesn't give enough protection. Horse racing is a great example, ATR is about 6 seconds behind live but the ir delay is just 1 second giving the oncourse people a 5 second advantage. So sometimes I end up backing a fallen horse but I am fully aware of the delay it is well publicised but I have chosen it is something I am willing to accept. Were BF to introduce a 6 second delay would I be happy? No, I don't want to see it, I am not 100% against there being no delay tbh.
You could extend the argument to other things, such as those on faster broadband, those parts of the country or countries closer to the BF servers, those with better PC's, those that use gaming pads etc etc. It is all in the main done to try and get your orders in quicker to give you a better advantage imo.
I used to be against courtsiders (read oncourse for racing which is where my interest lies). But for the last few years I have changed and think they do nothing wrong.
As Peter has said he was able to go to the event and do some courtsiding himself. It is open to all (allowing for ticket allocations/capacity) as long as you have the capital to buy the tickets and get to the event.
My view of it changed when I found out about the use of VPS's, not for inrunning at first but for pre race trading on the horses. I found out about them prior to them becoming what I now call public knowledge, usually when something gets in the wider public domain the edge has gone to some extent. People were using them long before I found out about them not just for their bots but for the manual trading.
Why?
Because it gave a time advantage mainly. It meant if I and a VPS user both went for the same order the VPS user should always beat me to it. There are other advantages in using them but I think most users used them because of the reason I found out about them, they had near zero ping time to Betfair.
This imo is no different to courtsiding.
Like courtsiding, VPS's are now in the public domain but like the activity of courtsiding there was a good period where few were aware of its goings on.
Courtsiding has its disadvantages as well as advantages though, for example you can only be in one place at a time. You can't be oncourse at both AYR and Epsom at the same time, so you are limiting your opportunities from that view point.
What I do have an objection to is when Betfair or others claim the delay in placing bets protects punters from the delay in pictures. Yes it offers some degree of protection but it doesn't give enough protection. Horse racing is a great example, ATR is about 6 seconds behind live but the ir delay is just 1 second giving the oncourse people a 5 second advantage. So sometimes I end up backing a fallen horse but I am fully aware of the delay it is well publicised but I have chosen it is something I am willing to accept. Were BF to introduce a 6 second delay would I be happy? No, I don't want to see it, I am not 100% against there being no delay tbh.
You could extend the argument to other things, such as those on faster broadband, those parts of the country or countries closer to the BF servers, those with better PC's, those that use gaming pads etc etc. It is all in the main done to try and get your orders in quicker to give you a better advantage imo.
I think it needs to be made clear that this doesn't just happen in Tennis and Horse Racing. It happens in every sport that is offered in play on Betfair. Cricket, Football, you name it.
The point is, is that if you didn't have courtsiders, you would still have people fighting over technology and feeds to get the information first so that they can profit from those people who even despite seeing the point is over decide to leave their bet or forget to cancel. There will always be people leaving bad value bets in the market and therefore someone will always be able to take that bet. If they aren't allowed to do this courtside, there will just be another arms race, just not courtside. Again one person will pay the money and be first to match these bets. Are they cheating, no. They are just profiting from other peoples mistakes, in the same way that anyone who is making money on Betfair is doing.
The point is, is that if you didn't have courtsiders, you would still have people fighting over technology and feeds to get the information first so that they can profit from those people who even despite seeing the point is over decide to leave their bet or forget to cancel. There will always be people leaving bad value bets in the market and therefore someone will always be able to take that bet. If they aren't allowed to do this courtside, there will just be another arms race, just not courtside. Again one person will pay the money and be first to match these bets. Are they cheating, no. They are just profiting from other peoples mistakes, in the same way that anyone who is making money on Betfair is doing.