Volume matched changes over the past year

[Iron]

A pro gambler I know has told me that:

'Whereas with 2 to 3 hours to go on a race last year you could be looking at £25,000 or more matched, this year it is very common to see around £5000 with the same amount of time to go.'

Does anyone else have any stats on volumes matched for this year compared with last year?

Jeff

[Euler]

I don't habe the data to answer this question but maybe somebody else can?

[gutuami]

that's what I have

[Iron]

Thanks Gutaumi - That's very interesting.

When you work out the average total matched per race figures on a yearly basis, you get the following:

2009 £801,036.29
2010 £768,060.41
2011 £776,425.71
2012 £871,201.07

Can anyone explain the jump in 2012? I'm no statistician, but it seems a bit high to be explained away by randomness...

Jeff

[andyfuller]

Still a third of the year to go with the quieter winter months still to come?

[Iron]

That could be part of it, but if you compare Jan-June for all the years in question, there is still an increase, when you might expect the opposite in light of the Premium Charge and the recession:

2009 £846,543.96
2010 £803,223.63
2011 £820,751.39
2012 £871,201.07

Jeff

Still a third of the year to go with the quieter winter months still to come?

[gutuami]

they might might have changed the way matched volumes are calculated with the x matching.

[mugsgame]

I don't think you can generalise with volume.

I know PW and some other pro traders agree that it's the fill rate that is the important stat.

Volume depends on the amount of runners and the odds.
There will be much more volume if there is a really short (heavy odds on) fav, even in a poor race at a poor track at an evening meeting.
Comparing the 8.15 at Wolves on 16th Dec 2011 to the same race 12 months later is pointless unless the odds of the runners are similar.

On top of that you have factors like Hugh Taylor tips, Pricewise tips etc.

I think you can compare volumes in Football fixtures featuring the same teams. And maybe big races such as the GN or Gold cup to a certain extent.

The quality of races is defiantly falling off. The amount of competitive races feels less.

The top of the book may be trading Ok(ish) but the back end of the book is very very thin and full of holes. The middle of the book is more volatile than ever before. A horse can go from 6 to 8 in 20 seconds, and then back again. The whole book is full of spoof money & ice bergs, more and more markets are untradable lately.

You get a "feeling" about these things. My "feeling" tells be it is falling apart fast. The book I was planning to write " How I made £1million on Betfair" is going to have to wait a bit longer.

[LeTiss]

The book I was planning to write " How I made £1million on Betfair" is going to have to wait a bit longer.

By which time PW would have already written it

[Iron]

Comparing the 8.15 at Wolves on 16th Dec 2011 to the same race 12 months later is pointless unless the odds of the runners are similar.

Granted, but don't these things even themselves out over a large number of races?

That's certainly what Gutuami's stats suggest. The average minimum BSP for January to July (for easy comparison, as that's as far as the 2012 stats extend) is as follows:

2009 3.53
2010 3.47
2011 3.49
2012 3.45

Jeff

[mugsgame]

Comparing the 8.15 at Wolves on 16th Dec 2011 to the same race 12 months later is pointless unless the odds of the runners are similar.

Granted, but don't these things even themselves out over a large number of races?

That's certainly what Gutuami's stats suggest. The average minimum BSP for January to July (for easy comparison, as that's as far as the 2012 stats extend) is as follows:

2009 3.53
2010 3.47
2011 3.49
2012 3.45

Jeff

Jeff I potentially trade 95% of the races, I cannot back up what I am saying with stats. But thats how I see it. It's really obvious to me and judging from various comments by respected pros I am pretty confident about what I am saying.

[Iron]

I'm not saying you're wrong or that you're imagining things. The interesting question is this: let's say, for argument's sake, that you're right and the stats are also right. How can that be?

One possibility is that much of the volume that's reported for this year is 'phantom volume', caused by the self-matching activities of people/entities whose accounts are set up to allow their self-matching to count towards the official volume figure.

Jeff

Jeff I potentially trade 95% of the races, I cannot back up what I am saying with stats. But thats how I see it. It's really obvious to me and judging from various comments by respected pros I am pretty confident about what I am saying.

[Akindwurd]

Is self-matching possible on BETDAQ? If not, the structural volumes matched there could be a proxy reality check, at least for some markets. In fact, it could still be a useful proxy even if self-matching is possible, provided that the manipulators don't bother to exploit it.

[mcfc1981]

less racing this year meaning higher trading per race maybe.
someone will have the stats if the volume is higher per race on a 2 card afternoon or a 3 card afternoon.
im sure this year there must be more 2 cards then previous years

[gutuami]

try this one and tell us if you find anything