MATCHBOOK says goodbye to 2% commission...

[Mark Shark]

This discussion is unbelievable. It seems about half the posters are confused as how to read English and/or how to perform arithmetic. Mark Shark, BouncedCheck, et al.: if you are truly volume guys at MB and yet you are struggling to understand this new comm structure after days of painful effort, it's great news for the rest of us. Confused guys throwing money around = a good thing.

What I can't understand is why some people are for this. You really are no better off financially with the new system, well maybe if you bet a large outsider. It remains to see how things pan out next week but I am not so optimistic. You might think I am confused but obviously the example Matchbook gave wasn't as clear as you and Wileout would have us believe, otherwise we wouldn't have this debate raging on for days.

[bettilimbroke999]

DH was talking about 10 trades a $2000. So it is 200. You better read carefuly.

I dont read this junk carefully, if hes trading 20k a game live then this new system will definitely screw him

[Santo]

Wileout: Most bettors don't scalp. Thats the bottom line.

Maybe so; but does most of the volume scalp?

[bookie]

The biggest problem for matchbook that I bet will be reconciled in the near future is depositing.

Why do you think doing transfers is going to get easier?

[Mark Shark]

I would say that the majority of the volume on Matchbook is Scalping volume. Why if you really liked a team and wanted to back them for a large amount would you not take 2k at +104 guaranteed rather than wait for +105 and hope someone matches your money, further running the risk of the line moving further away from the +104 available. Especially when the best price you can get for that same team at another book is -110.

[bookie]

From reading this thread you would think MB had dozens of scalpers betting thousands of dollars on multiple live events every day. I don't pretend to have any inside info on MB's volume, but I would often look at MB's live offerings and the volume almost always sucked. I remember thinking at least the New Year's Bowl games were gonna be deep and tight, but they were shallow and sporadic.

I know the Santos and the Dark Horses of the board to be among the best posters, so I respect what they write. But I'm scratching my chin trying to figure out the overall enormous resistance to $101 to win $99 or $100 to win $100.20. Clearly what they were doing wasn't working, and this change at least makes sense from the point of view of the activity engaged in by the vast majority of bettors.

[bookie]

From the Matchbook homepage:

As demonstrated lately on many financial exchanges, liquidity explodes when people are paid to make offers.

I'm not familiar with financial exchanges. Can anyone point me toward these exchanges on which they're modeling themselves?

[Mark Shark]

What makes you think we are talking about live betting. All my action comes b4 the game starts. If you are a large better you need scalpers involved somehow, but if you bet 50 to 100$ a game then the changes wont really matter. Maybe scalpers will be putting up some good lines in the hope of someone matching them the only problem is we might find no-one wants to accept it. Never mind we will all find out next week. I can't wait, maybe it will be better for all of us, bettors and scalpers alike.

[bookie]

What makes you think we are talking about live betting?

What people have written.

Never mind we will all find out next week.

No we won't. It's going to take a while for word of this to circulate and for deposits to flow to MB or not.

[Mark Shark]

Why would you think deposits will flow to Matchbook. If you are a bettor than things really haven't changed. You are still paying 2% on your wins. Maybe a little less for outsiders. Maybe it will be the other way round and we will see withdrawals flowing. Either way over the next few weeks/mths we will find out just how good this system really is. Matchbook exec's will either be patting each other on the back or looking for new jobs. We will wait and see.

[Halifax]

nm

[UncleChris]

By the way. When exactly is next week? Does this start tomorrow?

[coldhardfacts]

You are still paying 2% on your wins.

???? Where do you get that from????

[Keith Richard]

Yes when does this officially start?

[Reggie Dunlop]

I read somewhere that Matchbook staffers are reading this thread.

Hey Matchbook: Please add Moneygram and Western Union to your deposit and withdrawal options. Many people do not like bankwires, and will not send you bankwires. You are losing out on a lot of customers, and reducing your market.

[coldhardfacts]

I read somewhere that Matchbook staffers are reading this thread.

Hey Matchbook: Please add Moneygram and Western Union to your deposit and withdrawal options. Many people do not like bankwires, and will not send you bankwires. You are losing out on a lot of customers, and reducing your market.

[GoodVibrations]

Here's my question:

If I'm going to play a a game at pick'em and I have a choice between laying -110 at WSEX and -102 at Matchbook, do I still have the best of it at Matchbook?

The answer:

YES!!!!

So as long as the answer is YES why did I need to read six pages on all of this?

[Mark Shark]

???? Where do you get that from????

What percentage do you call it when you risk 100 to win 98. Do the maths.

[coldhardfacts]

What percentage do you call it when you risk 100 to win 98. Do the maths.

Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems to me that you're risking $100 to win $99. On any even money bet, if you bet $100, they take $1 in rake off the top. So your actual bet is $99 to win $99. You win $99, not $98. Am I wrong?

[bettilimbroke999]

Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems to me that you're risking $100 to win $99. On any even money bet, if you bet $100, they take $1 in rake off the top. So your actual bet is $99 to win $99. You win $99, not $98. Am I wrong?

On an even money bet under the new system you are risking 101 to win 99 at +100, you bet 100 and have a dollar taken away, thus you've risked 101, if u win you are returned 200-101 = 99

At +100 under the new system you are risking 101 to win 99 for a payout of 98.02%

At +100 under the old system you are risking 100 to win 98 for a payout of 98%

For every 100 dollars you accept under the new system you stand to win an extra 2 cents on a straight wager

This does not apply to multiple wagering that arbing/scalping or live betting entails, which would involve much higher commissions under the new system if you are accepting offers rather than offering them

[coldhardfacts]

On an even money bet under the new system you are risking 101 to win 99 at +100, you bet 100 and have a dollar taken away, thus you've risked 101, if u win you are returned 200-101 = 99

At +100 under the new system you are risking 101 to win 99 for a payout of 98.02%

At +100 under the old system you are risking 100 to win 98 for a payout of 98%

For every 100 dollars you accept under the new system you stand to win an extra 2 cents on a straight wager

This does not apply to multiple wagering that arbing/scalping or live betting entails, which would involve much higher commissions under the new system if you are accepting offers rather than offering them

OK - I got it. So if you make a $100 bet with only $100 in your account, they will allow you to fill only $99 of it, correct? This still seems like a better deal. For example, if you take a dog at plus 120 instead of even in the above example, you'll be risking $101 to win $120, for odds of 1.19 to 1. Under the old system you'd be risking 100 to win $117.60 - odds of 1.176 to 1.

And it's advantageous if you're laying odds as well. Under the old system, you'd have to lay 1.224 to 1 on a 120 favorite. Under the new system, you'd risk only 1.212 to win 100. If my math's correct.

And, given the built in advantages that offerors will be getting, it seems like the markets figure to be a lot tighter and you'll be getting better odds on most games.

[Mark Shark]

OK - I got it. So if you make a $100 bet with only $100 in your account, they will allow you to fill only $99 of it, correct? This still seems like a better deal. For example, if you take a dog at plus 120 instead of even in the above example, you'll be risking $101 to win $120, for odds of 1.19 to 1. Under the old system you'd be risking 100 to win $117.60 - odds of 1.176 to 1.

No your Maths isn't right in the example above. If you are risking $101 to win $119 then the odds are 1.19 to 1.01 which is 117.82 to 1. This turns out to be only marginally better than the 1.176. You forgot that you had to risk $101 to win the $119.

[Kaps]

Dont let them fool you this is bullshit. What they are doing is trying to weed out the scalpers
and they will still make their money

I just wish they would stick with the commission structure tey have in place now and offer baseball at 1% just like they did last year

BAD move on matchbooks part

[andywend]

Here is what's going to happen once this new commission structure is put into place:

Liquidty will increase and spreads will tighten on regular pre-game betting. If you bet the traditional way and don't participate in live betting markets, then this change will be significantly better for you.

For live betting markets, this change is AWFUL in every respect. There will be far less liquidity and far less volume in live betting markets and traders are going to pay far, far more in commissions than they did previously.

This commission on every trade structure drove TradeSports out of business when a commission on net win option became available with Matchbook.

If Matchbook insists on this new, FAR MORE EXPENSIVE commission structure for live betting, then another outlet will enter the market with a far less costly commission structure and traders will flock to this new betting outlet.

Matchbook is making a HUGE MISTAKE here.

[Mark Shark]

Has anyone here worked out if this new structure starts today or next Monday. I haven't noticed anything different when trying to bet so far. Maybe next week???

[Kaps]

I called customer service earlier today and they are not even sure when its going to start.
I believe that its still the same at this time

[Dark Horse]

It's an interesting experiment. I don't like the change in philosophy (from commission on profit to commission on volume), but let's see how it plays out. Best case scenario is that prices will improve significantly. Worst case scenario is that people will move away and use MB as a second option -good only if an offer is filled-, instead of a main out.

It's a gamble. My only question is 'why?' Why would a successful exchange risk its position as the best in the business? Is this their way of dealing with a struggling economy? I hope not.

[bookie]

Why would a successful exchange risk its position as the best in the business?

They may be the best in the business, but that's not saying much because outside of baseball it doesn't look like they've got much volume at all.

Presumably the baseball experiment kind of worked, but it didn't carry over into football as hoped. So 2.0 is this attempt to see what kind of business can be tansacted with eight-tenths of a percent hold.

I've been surprised in this thread by what seems to be a common assumption that MB was thriving. It's looked to me like their volume has been getting worse and worse over the past year and a half.

[Santo]

Dont let them fool you this is bullshit. What they are doing is trying to weed out the scalpers
and they will still make their money

I just wish they would stick with the commission structure tey have in place now and offer baseball at 1% just like they did last year

BAD move on matchbooks part

It did strike me that this might be a move to protect the market makers..

[DeluxeLiner]

Anyone know when this goes into effect? Today is the start of "next week" ...actually yesterday technically was, but today is the first business day.

[u21c3f6]

Anyone know when this goes into effect? Today is the start of "next week" ...actually yesterday technically was, but today is the first business day.

Tuesday 3/17. The website has been updated. They also lowered the accept rate for live trading to .5%.

Joe.

[BouncedCheck]

Look man, this is really the easiest thing to understand. You are making it waaaaaay too complicated.

Ok let me give one example and you tell me if it's correct, according to your interpretation of what matchbook has posted on its home page.

I'm an acceptor. I take a favorite that's listed at -300. I put down $298.48.

If I win, I win $99.49. Therefore, my payout will be $298.48 + $99.49 - $0.99 = $396.98.

If I lose, I lose the $298.48 that I wagered and I lose $0.99 in commission, so my account has $299.47 deducted.

So, in effect, I've risked $299.47 and the total potential payout upon winning is $396.98, which has a difference of $97.51 in actual potential winnings.

Therefore, I've risked $299.47 to win $97.51, meaning a bet that's listed at -300 is really -307 ($299.47 ÷ $97.51) when commission in factored in.

All good?

[BouncedCheck]

Opposite example:

I'm an acceptor. I take an underdog that's listed at +300. I put down $99.49.

If I win, I win $298.47. Therefore, my payout will be $99.49 + $298.47 - $0.99 = $396.97.

If I lose, I lose the $99.49 that I wagered and I lose $0.99 in commission, so my account has $100.48 deducted.

So, in effect, I've risked $100.48 and the total potential payout upon winning is $396.97, which has a difference of $296.49 in actual potential winnings.

Therefore, I've risked $100.48 and the total potential payout upon winning is $396.97, which has a difference of $296.49 in actual potential winnings.

Therefore, I've risked $100.48 to win $296.49, meaning a bet that's listed at +300 is really +295 ($296.49 ÷ $100.48) when commission is factored in.

[u21c3f6]

Opposite example:

I'm an acceptor. I take an underdog that's listed at +300. I put down $99.49.

If I win, I win $298.47. Therefore, my payout will be $99.49 + $298.47 - $0.99 = $396.97.

If I lose, I lose the $99.49 that I wagered and I lose $0.99 in commission, so my account has $100.48 deducted.

So, in effect, I've risked $100.48 and the total potential payout upon winning is $396.97, which has a difference of $296.49 in actual potential winnings.

Therefore, I've risked $100.48 and the total potential payout upon winning is $396.97, which has a difference of $296.49 in actual potential winnings.

Therefore, I've risked $100.48 to win $296.49, meaning a bet that's listed at +300 is really +295 ($296.49 ÷ $100.48) when commission is factored in.

HOW WE CALCULATE THE RATECommission rates of 1.0% or -0.2% will be applied to the lesser of your "bet" or "to win" amount. So regardless of whether you bet $1,000 to win $5,000, or $5,000 to win $1,000, your bet size is treated as only $1,000. In both cases, you pay $10 in commissions if you accept an offer, or you are paid $2 if your offer is accepted.

No. Let's do away with the oddball amounts. If you risk $100 at +300, if you win you will receive $300 - $1 in commission for a total of $299. If you lose, you lose $100 wagered plus $1 in commission for atotal loss of $101. Your effective odds are $101 to win $299 or +296.

If I use your bet amount of $99.49 it would be:

Win: $99.49*3 - 99.49*.01 = $297.475
Lose: $99.47 + 99.49*.01 = $100.485
297.475/100.485 = +296

Joe.

[UncleChris]

Jesus Christ! What is so difficult about deducting 1% (from the lesser amount) of every bet you hit? I know some children going to kindergarden who are able to solve this "riddle".