Question for Matchbook

[Phigment]

All last week you had the Dallas/Philly game at 3 with no alternate lines posted and the indication that the game would be available for live betting. A few minutes before kickoff I saw a 2.5 alternate line go up and once the game started the only live betting was at the 2.5 line. When I see a game listed as having live betting how do I know what line will be available during the game?

Also, what are the criteria for selecting a game for live betting? Why not offer all games?

[Matchbook]

Hi Phigment--

Right now, we are only turning games live when we have market-maker support for them. In theory, you're right--we could turn every single market on the site "live" and allow people to post offers throughout the game. But this would result in hundreds of shallow markets, and people would have trouble finding where the action was. Until we get live trading in full swing (hopefully in time for the playoffs) our goal is to concentrate the action as much as possible.

You make a good point about the "green dot" we use to show that a market will go live. It might be better if we attached it to the specific pointspread or total market instead of to the overall game. Or we could create a daily menu that listed the exact pointspreads that will be live. I'll check to see what's possible here.

[Santo]

Matchbook: I'm far more likely to hedge a position In-Running, and thus contribute to the liquidity if the same market as pre-game is turned in running... otherwise if I want to hedge, I pay the full comission on the winning bet, which kind of defeats the object of hedging..

That said, I do a lot of trading in and out of positions, and it seems logical from my perspective (and also I'd imagine from yours), to offer primary markets by the half-point... there's nothing more frustrating than locking in a solid profit before the game starts, only to see it negated by all bets pushing.. and of course when all bets push, you get 0 comission.. Betfair for instance have all their NFL spreads and totals by the half, even if it means a +115/-111 line instead of -102/-102..

[Phigment]

Hi Phigment--

Right now, we are only turning games live when we have market-maker support for them. In theory, you're right--we could turn every single market on the site "live" and allow people to post offers throughout the game. But this would result in hundreds of shallow markets, and people would have trouble finding where the action was. Until we get live trading in full swing (hopefully in time for the playoffs) our goal is to concentrate the action as much as possible.

You make a good point about the "green dot" we use to show that a market will go live. It might be better if we attached it to the specific pointspread or total market instead of to the overall game. Or we could create a daily menu that listed the exact pointspreads that will be live. I'll check to see what's possible here.

Yes, it's the green dot that seems to imply that the specific line(s) it is next to will be available for live betting, not just that game. The MNF game was at 3 with the green dot all week then before kickoff the 2.5 line with its own green dot went up, so for a time it looked that there would be two lines with live betting. Once live betting went active only the 2.5 remained. It was confusing to me and I imagine would be for any newcomers. I think your suggestion of attaching the green dot to specific spreads, lines, and totals would alleviate any confusion.

I realize that going live on all games requires the volume be there to create an efficient market but I have to think that at least all NFL games would have the necessary interest. Thanks for the update and I look forward to you rolling out more live betting in the near future.

[Sam Odom]

Matchbook is going to be HUGE! Keep up the good work.

[Phigment]

Will the Indy game have live betting today at 5 1/2, 5 or both?

[8ate]

you all oughtta take a look at matchbox:

it's the future; here right now

only need is more volume

jmho

gl

:hump:

[Santo]

10k on NFL Sides is hard to argue with, 2pt spread

<$1k on NCAAB though

[Phigment]

I like Matchbook too but am starting to have some frustrations with the deposit fee structure. Even though it is offset as a commission credit I feel like I am building a huge credit that I'll never get the full benefit of. Unless you are consistent short term winner there or only scalp you won't draw down your credit. Am I far off on this thought?

Perhaps Matchbook could set a commsiion credit cap after which deposits are free and/or allow us to apply the commission credits towards deposit fees? Re-upping my account is getting expensive...

[zee]

Am I far off on this thought?

Yes, if you're able to get at least a bit close to 50% you'd get your fees back from the credit.
Anyway, lots of good talk on the matchbook threads, yet to see something actually change.

In theory, you're right--we could turn every single market on the site "live" and allow people to post offers throughout the game. But this would result in hundreds of shallow markets, and people would have trouble finding where the action was.

That is the absolute most ridiculous thing I've heard. People don't go to your site looking for "action" they go there looking for a specific market. Nobody just browses around to see if there are some money anywhere to bet it. Your conclusion is absolutely incorrect. If you leave your markets IP, even if there is nobody making live prices, people would still realize they have the possibility to try & hedge this -6.5 at a nice price @ ht when the fav is winning by 8 and watch the game with a beer.If you have the technical ability to leave markets open after kick off, but you're not doing it, you're in the wrong.

[colbyson]

dont really like theses type of sites

[Woody0]

I like Matchbook too but am starting to have some frustrations with the deposit fee structure. Even though it is offset as a commission credit I feel like I am building a huge credit that I'll never get the full benefit of. Unless you are consistent short term winner there or only scalp you won't draw down your credit.

Hmm, sounds like you need to get more winners, or not withdraw your balance after winning.

Scalpers are hurt by the fee structure since I believe the commission is based on the net win.

[ensign_lee]

Hmm, sounds like you need to get more winners, or not withdraw your balance after winning.

Scalpers are hurt by the fee structure since I believe the commission is based on the net win.

Well, that depends on the way you look at it.

It's a lot better for scalpers because they're taking 2% of the winning amount of the scalp, rather than 2% on each side. 2% on each side would SUCK.

[Phigment]

Hmm, sounds like you need to get more winners, or not withdraw your balance after winning.

Scalpers are hurt by the fee structure since I believe the commission is based on the net win.

I have never withdrawn from Matchbook. I just seem to lose 2/3 of my bets there. I guess the good prices come at a cost...

Actually, scalps on Matchbook are great since you only pay a commission on the net profit of the scalp, not the entire winning side of the scalp.

[Doug]

Should be excellent for baseball.

[apt]

started using matchbook this past week. so far i'm very impressed. very simple yet effective interface. the thing i like most is they dont charge u commission on a "per contract" basis like some other places.

[Doug]

Question for matchbook. If I played a scalp I only pay the commission on the win. What if I played a team -6 and later played the dog +7, do funds get freed up when the +7 bet is made ? They don't at Mansion, for example, but would if I bought out at the same 6 point spread.

[Caesar]

Question for matchbook. If I played a scalp I only pay the commission on the win. What if I played a team -6 and later played the dog +7, do funds get freed up when the +7 bet is made ? They don't at Mansion, for example, but would if I bought out at the same 6 point spread.

sorry Doug but you would have two separate bets and pay the full 2% on the winning side.

that is the only good thing about tradebetx as they will never change a number and the traders will adjust accordingly, even if there has been a 5 point move in an nba total. its too bad tradebetx has fees that are out of hand because i like trading the original number much better.

im not trying to start anything because matchbook has been my favorite out for over the last 6 months but they are more like a sportsbook with a different business model

with that said if a few more matchbooks opened up it would put a few places out of business and as long as nobody lost money it would greatly help the player.

[Doug]

sorry Doug but you would have two separate bets and pay the full 2% on the winning side.

that is the only good thing about tradebetx as they will never change a number and the traders will adjust accordingly, even if there has been a 5 point move in an nba total. its too bad tradebetx has fees that are out of hand because i like trading the original number much better.

im not trying to start anything because matchbook has been my favorite out for over the last 6 months but they are more like a sportsbook with a different business model

with that said if a few more matchbooks opened up it would put a few places out of business and as long as nobody lost money it would greatly help the player.

That's what I thought. No problem. This should be better than Mansion on bases !

[ronaldn]

How come most of the NBA lines the last few days have been 10 cent ones? For example, Utah +10 -110/Seattle -10 -100. I thought 4 to 6 cents was to be the standard. A 10 cent line with a fee attached for the winner is no bargain that I can see. What's up here?

[Jimmy Hoffa]

How come most of the NBA lines the last few days have been 10 cent ones? For example, Utah +10 -110/Seattle -10 -100. I thought 4 to 6 cents was to be the standard. A 10 cent line with a fee attached for the winner is no bargain that I can see. What's up here?Offer up your own lines as an alternative if what you see is unattractive. If you get a match, great. If not, play the game at another book with a better line.

Matchbook is a great out, but not the only out.

[ensign_lee]

How come most of the NBA lines the last few days have been 10 cent ones? For example, Utah +10 -110/Seattle -10 -100. I thought 4 to 6 cents was to be the standard. A 10 cent line with a fee attached for the winner is no bargain that I can see. What's up here?

Because people wanted odds of +110 on the other side. If you want better odds than that, post up your own and see if someone takes the other side.

[Fishhead]

Matchbook is taking alot of my Pinnacle action away....fwiw.

[Jimmy Hoffa]

Matchbook is taking alot of my Pinnacle action away....fwiw.Mine also Fish. It's Scalp City.

[ronaldn]

Mine also Fish. It's Scalp City.

Could someone provide me with an example of a scalp they have gotten in there? I have accts at 3 other books including pinny and I check in there all day long and have yet to find one. It's probably me as I'm not an experienced scalp hunter but would appreciate your help. Thx

[Santo]

It's more that they last barely a few seconds.

[christof]

Matchbook:

Why no moneylines or totals on college games?

You don't need a marketmaker, but let us post our own offers at least. No one would even need to monitor and change them like the point spread.

[Matchbook]

Lot of great thoughts here--sorry for the delay in getting back to everyone. Just to address a few general points first:

Commission credits: If it costs a customer $29 to send Matchbook $1,000, Matchbook gives that customer $29 in "commission credits." These credits automatically offset the 2% commission you'd normally pay on winning bets.

Basically, we're saying we're happy to pick up the tab for your transaction costs, but only if you're going to use the money to play at Matchbook. If you're going to send us $1,000, then yo-yo the money in and out of the account five times before you've even placed a bet, we simply can't cover your transaction costs. (We could, in theory, but costs like that have a way of getting passed on to customers in the form of higher commissions, poor customer service, fees attached to your withdrawals, etc.).

Phigment's question is whether most customers ever get around to using their commission credits, and whether this system only benefits consistent winners or scalpers. The answer is definitely not: almost every customer we've given credits to has taken full advantage of them: consistent winners, break-even players, and losing players alike.

There are a couple of exceptions. If you lose practically all your bets, post up more funds, and continue losing each and every bet, then you never generate any commissions (since they're only applied to winning bets), and you won't use your commission credits. But, even in these rare cases, your commission credits don't go away--they remain in your account and will be there once the law of averages kicks in and you start winning a few bets.

The other case where you won't benefit is if you cycle money in and out of your account on an almost daily basis while placing few if any bets. This is the type of behavior the system discriminates against, by making these customers cover their own costs and keeping the exchange a low-cost platform for everyone else to play on.

[Matchbook]

DougJ and Caesar:

Our commission structure is great for scalpers, because we charge 2% on your position's net win only (not on each individual winning bet).

Caesar is right, however, that we currently treat a game that traded at two different pointspreads as separate markets (i.e., you get charged on your net win at each pointspread).

After reading your post, I checked to see if there's any reason we couldn't aggregate all the pointspread markets for a game and apply commission based on your net win across all of them. I found that our system should be able to support this, and we will get to work on implementing it. Pointspreads will still be separate from totals and moneylines, of course, but there would only be *one* commission applied per game for each type of market. We think this might be a very popular move--thanks for the suggestion.

[Phigment]

Basically, we're saying we're happy to pick up the tab for your transaction costs, but only if you're going to use the money to play at Matchbook. If you're going to send us $1,000, then yo-yo the money in and out of the account five times before you've even placed a bet, we simply can't cover your transaction costs. (We could, in theory, but costs like that have a way of getting passed on to customers in the form of higher commissions, poor customer service, fees attached to your withdrawals, etc.).

Matchbook,

What was the rationale of the front loaded deposit structure rather than a more traditional structure of making all deposits free and maybe one free withdrawal a month? Assuming the withdrawal fee is high enough you'd still be accomplishing the purpose of slowing down the exodus of players' funds yet still encourage player's to re-up their accounts.

Do away with the upfront fee and the corresponding commission credit. Let us pay as we go. You'll take an immediate hit of the 2.9% you're currently holding back but now that money will be in play to generate commissions and I'd be more inclined to throw more money in my account. If you can't operate without the immediate 2.9% profit, then allow commission credits to be used as deposit credits or set up some sort of deposit fee cap.

Don't get me wrong, I really do like Matchbook. Just frustrated with the current deposit structure.

[Matchbook]

Hi Phigment-- I hope everything's OK with your Norton firewall, by the way. I'm still awaiting better instructions for people with problems other than "turn it off".

The rationale behind our transaction structure is that if you post up funds and actually use them to bet at Matchbook, there are zero transaction costs to the customer on the way in (since they're offset by commission credits), and zero transaction costs on the way out. Hard to beat that.

We were frustrated by the "make it incredibly easy for people to send you their money, and put the brakes on (and charge them) when they want to withdraw it" approach used by many sportsbooks.

Just to be clear, Matchbook makes no profits on transaction fees. The $29 we give you in commission credits really does cost us $29. And, not many people realize this, but it costs books absolutely nothing to process Neteller withdrawals. As a result, we don't try to make a profit on them by tacking on a fee or imposing restrictions on how often you can have them. (We do have to charge extra for FedEx and bank wires.)

In theory, you're right, we could reverse the structure, and just assume that people will make up for their transaction fees (which I think is a pretty safe assumption), and not abuse the structure by cycling money in and out without betting. Of course, under this system, we'd probably have to impose the withdrawal fees and restrictions used by other books.

We were hesitant to make these assumptions at the outset, however, because we wanted to make sure that Matchbook really was a "pay as it goes" entity and that we could therefore cut commission rates to the bone. We could certainly revisit this question once we have another quarter or two of customer data to look at.

[Phigment]

Hi Phigment-- I hope everything's OK with your Norton firewall, by the way. I'm still awaiting better instructions for people with problems other than "turn it off".

The rationale behind our transaction structure is that if you post up funds and actually use them to bet at Matchbook, there are zero transaction costs to the customer on the way in (since they're offset by commission credits), and zero transaction costs on the way out. Hard to beat that.

We were frustrated by the "make it incredibly easy for people to send you their money, and put the brakes on (and charge them) when they want to withdraw it" approach used by many sportsbooks.

Just to be clear, Matchbook makes no profits on transaction fees. The $29 we give you in commission credits really does cost us $29. And, not many people realize this, but it costs books absolutely nothing to process Neteller withdrawals. As a result, we don't try to make a profit on them by tacking on a fee or imposing restrictions on how often you can have them. (We do have to charge extra for FedEx and bank wires.)

In theory, you're right, we could reverse the structure, and just assume that people will make up for their transaction fees (which I think is a pretty safe assumption), and not abuse the structure by cycling money in and out without betting. Of course, under this system, we'd probably have to impose the withdrawal fees and restrictions used by other books.

We were hesitant to make these assumptions at the outset, however, because we wanted to make sure that Matchbook really was a "pay as it goes" entity and that we could therefore cut commission rates to the bone. We could certainly revisit this question once we have another quarter or two of customer data to look at.

Thanks for remembering that I am still looking for an answer on my firewall problem. Right now I just turn it off when I want to access your site.

I never realized that you incurred a 2.9% fee on every dollar transferred in but nothing on the way out. I can see how that can add up. I hope that with time and data you can implement a structure that is equitable to all parties.

Any idea about when you'll be offering more live betting events?

Thanks for your diligence in responding to this thread.

[Santo]

After reading your post, I checked to see if there's any reason we couldn't aggregate all the pointspread markets for a game and apply commission based on your net win across all of them. I found that our system should be able to support this, and we will get to work on implementing it. Pointspreads will still be separate from totals and moneylines, of course, but there would only be *one* commission applied per game for each type of market. We think this might be a very popular move--thanks for the suggestion.

It would be a hugely popular move with me... I've played several bets elsewhere (well at Pinnacle) in the last few weeks, because it worked out cheaper on a middle oppertunity to do this, than to pay the comission betting the otherside at Matchbook.

Is there likely to be a short timeline on this? Also any progress on the net liability functionality I enquired about earlier? Still have to keep clicking to find my overall position :-)

Cheers,

~S

[Woody0]

Actually, scalps on Matchbook are great since you only pay a commission on the net profit of the scalp, not the entire winning side of the scalp.

This is kinda my point.

It's a good deal for scalpers to pay on net win only. But if you only scalp at Matchbook off a big balance (i.e. make the market) then it will take some time to write down the 2.9% fee on your balance, since your net win is only a small percentage of your balance.

[Phigment]

This is kinda my point.

It's a good deal for scalpers to pay on net win only. But if you only scalp at Matchbook off a big balance (i.e. make the market) then it will take some time to write down the 2.9% fee on your balance, since your net win is only a small percentage of your balance.

Yes, we agree on this point. Scalping is really a nickel and dime effort to begin with anyway. Once you've covered the front end charge, it's all gravy though. The worst is having one side of a scalp away from Matchbook and watching the game rooting for a win on the Matchbook side to avoid the 2.9% reload fee only to see it go the other way. I just factor the 2.9% in the if Matchbook is only going to be on one side.

[Woody0]

After reading your post, I checked to see if there's any reason we couldn't aggregate all the pointspread markets for a game and apply commission based on your net win across all of them. I found that our system should be able to support this, and we will get to work on implementing it. Pointspreads will still be separate from totals and moneylines, of course, but there would only be *one* commission applied per game for each type of market. We think this might be a very popular move--thanks for the suggestion.

Wow, terrific.

I'm sure it will be hugely popular. Look forward to getting notification of the change.

[vanzack]

Matchbook is awesome for the average player. Even for the bigger player - the depth is getting bigger and bigger.

I look forward to when the offers are as big as mansions. At that point - there would be absolutely no reason to play anywhere else.

Mansion is the future of sportsbetting and it is just in its infancy.

[acw]

After reading your post, I checked to see if there's any reason we couldn't aggregate all the pointspread markets for a game and apply commission based on your net win across all of them. I found that our system should be able to support this, and we will get to work on implementing it. Pointspreads will still be separate from totals and moneylines, of course, but there would only be *one* commission applied per game for each type of market. We think this might be a very popular move--thanks for the suggestion.
I am very much in favour of one (small <1%) single commission charged on every transaction and not the system that BetFair has now, which is only charge commission on the net winnings of a market. In my point of view traders ruin your business long term! They come in handy for short term liquidity, but the moment genuine gamblers see prices being snatched away at lightening speed, because traders know that they can trade them out in at worst a no loss situation, the genuine gamblers will be gone. BetFair has this problem now!!! Their winnings are dropping and they have their hands in their hairs what to do about it. They fear if they will change their trader friendly system that they will be left with even less liquidity. Anyhow I strongly suggest you read this thread:
http://forum.betfair.com/jive3/betex/threads.jspa?tID=356726&start=0&tstart=0&schatname=null

[Santo]

I'm very much against the system suggested above. Tradesports have tried it, and it's been hugely unsuccessful, the spreads are huge at TBX now, often 10 cents or more during the day...

The current system is good, combining markets by spread for comissions is better.

[Phigment]

I never saw this before but a wire transfer deposit is free? That's the answer I was looking for. My bank gives me a certain amount of free wires a month so I think that's a great way to avoid the upfront fee.

I guess the rub will be whether I can withdraw back to Neteller?

[pags11]

I, too have enjoyed my experience with matchbook so far...I get a little frustrated with the deposit charges/ commission credits as well...hopefully, this is something they will work out in the future...I also think they need to implement some type of small referral bonus...

[Santo]

I was able to deposit by card and withdraw via Neteller, but you had to send ID before being able to withdraw an amount in excess of your Neteller deposits..

And a bump for Matchbook to answer the questions above :-)

[Matchbook]

Cheers, Santo. The hotlinked reports pages you suggest are now on the project list, alongside the commission-aggregation scheme, but we don't have an exact timeline yet. Matchbook has about as many moving parts as the Space Shuttle, so new features have to tested with enormous care, not just to see if they work, but to ensure they don't have unexpected knock-on effects.

Speaking of which, Zee, if you're still out there, a manual "odds refresh" button is on the way! I've seen it with my own eyes, and it's currently being stress-tested before we put it into production.

Phigment: Thanks for you comments on our live betting markets. The exact pointspread that live games trade at will now be added to the Live Betting menu on the home page. We leave the final decision up to the primary market maker, but we'll post the pointspread on the menu as soon as we know. As a general rule, games trade at the half-point (6.5 or 7.5 instead of 7.0) in whichever direction is closer to even money.

Christof: We've put a lot of effort into making sure all the events posted on Matchbook are of great enough interest to attract real support from market makers. For example, someone just offered to make markets on overnight NBA, so we'll be giving that a try shortly. Still, I understand that there are one-off games that people want to post offers on; just drop us a line with the game you want and we'll post it on the site.

RonaldN: You asked for examples of "scalps" on Matchbook. I remember in an earlier thread you were saying that Pinnacle had the Steelers at -7.5 +101, while Matchbook was at -8.0 -109. Well, there's your scalp. You could have bet the Steelers at -7.5 +101 and the other side at +8.0, at odds of about +105.

ACW: That's a fascinating discussion on commission structures, but one thing that was overlooked was sheer simplicity. There are countless ways to tweak commissions so you earn more from different types of users. For example, I've actually seen schemes where you are assigned a discount based on the moving average of your turnover over a specified timeframe, and have to apply for "vacations" so that your moving average doesn't decay if you choose not to play for a week or two. This is just too complicated.

One of the main reasons Matchbook went with a flat 2% rate was because it's so easy to understand. When you're gambling, you just don't have time to factor in five different rates, fees, and incentives into your odds. So at Matchbook, you always get the same low rate no matter how many bets you make, how large the bets are, or what the bets are on.

[Phigment]

Matchbook,

What are the withdrawal options/restrictions if I deposit by bank wire?

[Matchbook]

Funds that arrive by bank wire are secure, so you can withdraw them by any of the standard means without restriction (Neteller, check, or bank wire).

[Phigment]

Funds that arrive by bank wire are secure, so you can withdraw them by any of the standard means without restriction (Neteller, check, or bank wire).

Beautiful. Heading to the bank shortly to fund my account and hopefully win and reduce that large commission credit this weekend.

[zee]

Speaking of which, Zee, if you're still out there, a manual "odds refresh" button is on the way! I've seen it with my own eyes, and it's currently being stress-tested before we put it into production.


Very good nice.

[acw]

Matchbook,

Live betting!

I noticed that you have no delay at all in bets getting matched.
If you want me to put up some liquidity you will have to do that.
10 seconds please! BetFair only has 5 and this is too little.

[Omni]

They do have a delay, just a VERY small one. I really don't mind, I like it better.

If you put up offers, make use of the pause button right before plays go off, or a few seconds before if you suspect you have a slow feed.

[Santo]

10 seconds would be crazy. I'd go nowhere near it with a 10 second delay.

[acw]

Matchbook,

It has happened a few times now that I placed a bet in-running, wanted to cancel it, then the screen freezes for about 30 seconds and some decent message from your site pops-up (not from the Internet Explorer) telling me that there was an error. Of course my bets were always taken when it would not suit me.

For your information I do not have these problems with other exchanges.
Who is your software provider?

[Santo]

After reading your post, I checked to see if there's any reason we couldn't aggregate all the pointspread markets for a game and apply commission based on your net win across all of them. I found that our system should be able to support this, and we will get to work on implementing it. Pointspreads will still be separate from totals and moneylines, of course, but there would only be *one* commission applied per game for each type of market. We think this might be a very popular move--thanks for the suggestion.

Going to bump this in case the Matchbook rep subscribed to the thread, as I can't seem to get a straight answer out of their support department..

Any progress on this?

[pags11]

anyone know if they revisted revising the commission credit system?...

[acw]

Take a look at this San Francisco Giants vs Arizona Diamondbacks match.

Mansion has:
37,750 +138 -1.5 Run Line +1.5 -142 1,420

Matchbook:
San Francisco -1.5 +139 $653
+138 $1,249
+137 $1

Arizona +1.5 -141 $1,364
-142 $1,775
-164 $1,640

Needless to say that nothing is being matched on Matchbook, as Mansion has 0% commission and Matchbook charges 2%.

[Caesar]

Take a look at this San Francisco Giants vs Arizona Diamondbacks match.

Mansion has:
37,750 +138 -1.5 Run Line +1.5 -142 1,420

Matchbook:
San Francisco -1.5 +139 $653
+138 $1,249
+137 $1

Arizona +1.5 -141 $1,364
-142 $1,775
-164 $1,640

Needless to say that nothing is being matched on Matchbook, as Mansion has 0% commission and Matchbook charges 2%.

i really dont understand why people continually feel the need to compare mansion and matchbook. i understand they are both exchanges but we should be comparing the 2 books individually against what else is available offshore.

i hope matchbook doesnt change a thing if it allows them to make a decent profit and it assures that they will be around a very long time.

PAGS: i dont think the commission credits have changed as i have over 400 in credits there; it kinda sucks.

[pags11]

thanks for the update caesar...

[Paddywack]

Mansion has 0% commission

How can they stay in business with 0% commission?

[Santo]

They're trying to gain market share, and they do charge 0.5% on offers.. but it's not long-term unless they employ the best linesmakers/handicappers in the world.

ACW's example is very selective also, the price is often better at Matchbook even allowing for comission.

[yogi]

Matchbook has great potential but they need lines up earlier, fully funded with larger amounts, software upgrade to prevent freezing and crap at crunch time.

Untill they get these issues fixed they remain far behind Mansion IMO

[vanzack]

Matchbook has great potential but they need lines up earlier, fully funded with larger amounts, software upgrade to prevent freezing and crap at crunch time.

Untill they get these issues fixed they remain far behind Mansion IMO


Ironic after 2 days of Mansions software having so many bugs that you cant even check lines.

Look - here is the difference in the business models between Mansion and Matchbook:

Mansion seeds their own exchange. The offers you see are Mansions own money 90% of the time. Therefore, the commission is a bonus on them making a book. They think they can make money like every other book, by getting equal action on both sides and collecting vig - and making a little commission in the mean time. Why do you think they offer 0 commission if you accept an offer? Because it is MANSIONS offer you are accepting!!

Matchbook does not seed their own exchange. They make money soley upon commissions gained through trades. Therefore, the more liquid the market the more Matchbook stands to gain. They dont make book and therefore cannot go to a model of lower commissions as it is their only income stream.

Get it now?

[pags11]

good stuff as usual vanzack...

[acw]

They think they can make money like every other book, by getting equal action on both sides and collecting vig
No way! Mansion does not want action on both sides!
These guys are real gamblers they want to bet against the so called sharps of Pinnacle and as a bonus they give vig to the players that do the scalping, middling, fiddling and piddling jobs for them.

[Tchocky]

Hi Phigment--

Right now, we are only turning games live when we have market-maker support for them. In theory, you're right--we could turn every single market on the site "live" and allow people to post offers throughout the game. But this would result in hundreds of shallow markets, and people would have trouble finding where the action was. Until we get live trading in full swing (hopefully in time for the playoffs) our goal is to concentrate the action as much as possible.

You make a good point about the "green dot" we use to show that a market will go live. It might be better if we attached it to the specific pointspread or total market instead of to the overall game. Or we could create a daily menu that listed the exact pointspreads that will be live. I'll check to see what's possible here.

WSEX has the best live betting. It's just like daytrading. My only complaint is that the spread is huge! The spread is anywhere from $2.00 to $5.00 from the buy and sell price. They probably make between $1.00 to $4.00 a contract everytime some guy buys and sells. It's downright sick but I can't stay away.:smoker2:

[Brown sugar]

Matchbook: Do you have betting license in Ireland? Do you pay taxes in Ireland?

Just want to know as the gambling money won in European moneytary union is tax-free here.

[boatboatboat]

matchbook, please add more lines to football games.

1st/2nd/3rd/4th qtr.

also please allow bets at half time of ncaa games.

I understand at first you may not get much action doing this, but IMO over the course of time it would become quite popular.

thanx.

[acw]

I am very much in favour of one (small <1%) single commission charged on every transaction and not the system that BetFair has now, which is only charge commission on the net winnings of a market. In my point of view traders ruin your business long term! They come in handy for short term liquidity, but the moment genuine gamblers see prices being snatched away at lightening speed, because traders know that they can trade them out in at worst a no loss situation, the genuine gamblers will be gone. BetFair has this problem now!!! Their winnings are dropping and they have their hands in their hairs what to do about it. They fear if they will change their trader friendly system that they will be left with even less liquidity. Anyhow I strongly suggest you read this thread:
http://forum.betfair.com/jive3/betex/threads.jspa?tID=356726&start=0&tstart=0&schatname=null
It took them some 3.5 years, but they finally listened to me!
Any consultancy fee?