MATCHBOOK says goodbye to 2% commission...

**Immortality** · 03-10-09, 01:58 PM

Commission Changes at Matchbook

This change looks for the better.

Attached Files

**dwaechte** · 03-10-09, 02:02 PM

Absolutely great news. I know that Matchbook would eventually want to and be able to cut commissions, glad to see the day has come.

**roasthawg** · 03-10-09, 02:02 PM

I like it...this should really help liquidity.

**Mudcat** · 03-10-09, 03:18 PM

FYI there has been some extensive discussion of this going on in the Sportsbook and Industry forum today.

here

**ssanders82** · 03-10-09, 03:58 PM

So here's my question (I'm wondering if I'm missing something).

What if I make offers on both sides of the spread, and they are both taken, so my final bets are $100@+103 and $102@-102. My +103 wins (-102 loses) and I win $1. Does matchbook credit me .2% x $1 (net profit), or .2% x $200, which is the total amount of offers I put out there that were accepted? (I assume the former.)

Or, what if one of those bets was me accepting an offer and one was someone accepting my offer after the line moved a little. If the +103 was me accepting an existing offer, and it wins, and the -102 was someone accepting my offer, and it loses, what happens commission-wise then? Do they charge 1% on the full $100 offer I accepted, or do they net it out with the offsetting bet, and does it matter that the offsetter was someone accepting my offer.

**Santo** · 03-10-09, 04:04 PM

Originally posted by Dark Horse

And traders better have a percentage chart that translates the odds into what they're looking at on a 0-100 scale. In that regard, Tradesports was much clearer. Idea for the tool section, Ganch?

Can you expand on this DH? I've never used a 0-100 scale when trading prices?

**Santo** · 03-10-09, 04:05 PM

Originally posted by ssanders82

So here's my question (I'm wondering if I'm missing something).

What if I make offers on both sides of the spread, and they are both taken, so my final bets are $100@+103 and $102@-102. My +103 wins (-102 loses) and I win $1. Does matchbook credit me .2% x $1 (net profit), or .2% x $200, which is the total amount of offers I put out there that were accepted? (I assume the former.)

Or, what if one of those bets was me accepting an offer and one was someone accepting my offer after the line moved a little. If the +103 was me accepting an existing offer, and it wins, and the -102 was someone accepting my offer, and it loses, what happens commission-wise then? Do they charge 1% on the full $100 offer I accepted, or do they net it out with the offsetting bet, and does it matter that the offsetter was someone accepting my offer.

You would be credited $200*0.002 = $0.40

You would be charged 1% on $100, and receive 0.2% on $100, for a net commission of -$0.80.

**roasthawg** · 03-10-09, 04:10 PM

Originally posted by Santo

You would be credited $200*0.002 = $0.40

You would be charged 1% on $100, and receive 0.2% on $100, for a net commission of -$0.80.

No, you're not charged on bets that are accepted I thought. So you'd be up the $.40 pending the result of the bet.

**Santo** · 03-10-09, 04:15 PM

In his second example "If the +103 was me accepting an existing offer, and it wins, and the -102 was someone accepting my offer" - there's $100 both accepted and offered.

**DeluxeLiner** · 03-10-09, 04:46 PM

This seems to suck for scalpers big time.

**SBR Lou** · 03-10-09, 04:57 PM

Originally posted by DeluxeLiner

This seems to suck for scalpers big time.

Yeah, but I doubt most non-scalpers will lose sleep over that.

**WileOut** · 03-10-09, 05:13 PM

If you win more than you lose, this is a win even for takers. Especially if you take underdog ML offers as they calculate on the lower of the 2 amounts. This is a huge win for guys that offer aka market makers as they will not only get the +money on their offer but .2% on top. This will make matchbook by far the best thing going for everyone.

**xyz** · 03-10-09, 05:17 PM

Originally posted by CrazyLou

Yeah, but I doubt most non-scalpers will lose sleep over that.

Actually it doesn't suck for scalpers. Here is a working example:

Book A: -200 (put down $200 to win $100)

Matchbook now:
You would need around +204 on Matchbook to break even. Put down $100 to win $204.

Matchbook next week:
You can't put down $100 on Matchbook, because you need to pay commission if you lose. So you can only put down $99.01. And you would need odds of +203 to break even.

This is assuming that the scalper accepts an offer on Matchbook. If he makes an offer himself, and it gets accepted, then he can break even with worst odds than +203.

**Odessa** · 03-10-09, 05:24 PM

I like it a lot. It will not make any difference in the commission I pay, but it will encourage early action. This new structure rewards early bettors because it increases chances that their bets going to be accepted (FIFO).

**Santo** · 03-10-09, 05:27 PM

It sucks for scalpers within the Matchbook markets, as opposed to between matchbook and other books; who I dare say provide a lot of the liquidity, so I wouldn't be quite as dismissive as Crazy.

That said I think it's workable for all type of betters, the question is whether it will have the effect they desire. I'm 50/50 on that.

**Dark Horse** · 03-10-09, 05:29 PM

Originally posted by Santo

Can you expand on this DH? I've never used a 0-100 scale when trading prices?

The 0-100 scale, with a midpoint at 50, shows you exactly where you are as you trade. Buy at 55, sell at 58, 3 pts profit. Buy at 61, sell at 71, 10 pts profit. Winning contracts expire at 100, losing contracts expire at 0.

When I trade +178, -162, etc, I don't really know what I'm looking at until I convert it. If I knew immediately what I was looking at, I would trade much faster and more frequently. Greater clarity => increased liquidity.

**playz** · 03-10-09, 05:31 PM

Originally posted by xyz

Actually it doesn't suck for scalpers. Here is a working example:

Book A: -200 (put down $200 to win $100)

Matchbook now:
You would need around +204 on Matchbook to break even. Put down $100 to win $204.

Matchbook next week:
You can't put down $100 on Matchbook, because you need to pay commission if you lose. So you can only put down $99.01. And you would need odds of +203 to break even.

This is assuming that the scalper accepts an offer on Matchbook. If he makes an offer himself, and it gets accepted, then he can break even with worst odds than +203.

No you need odds at +204... 99 wins 202. So if you wanted to bet 100 you take away $1 in the beginning for placing.. then if you win on matchbook another 1% is taken out meaning you win 200.00. so 99 wins 200 and 200 to win 100. Though if you are accepting a bet it is the same thing as now basically. But if you continually lose you are charged 1% upfront therefore it is not seen as favorable. I rather be charged 2% for winnings then 1% upfront despite winning or losing and then 1% on winning bets. If you are a winning player and win at a high rate which most people are not then it doesnt matter but if you win 50% of the time you are being charged for losing wagers which will result in MORE commission for them.

At first glance it looks less but it is actually MORE.

**Santo** · 03-10-09, 05:33 PM

Ok, so the scale Tradesports used to use... I always used the TradebetX interface, never learnt 0-100.

I am used to trading Betfair, so I basically get all green then fiddle around with distributing it later. Not optimal, but distributing the profit tends to be small numbers so I'm guessing it costs me cents when the market goes against me.

**katstale** · 03-10-09, 05:39 PM

My 2 cents on this is probably worth abt 1 cent, but it seems to me if it brings in originators (opinionated lines) and liquidity it helps everyone EVEN and especially scalpers.

**Santo** · 03-10-09, 06:08 PM

I don't disagree, it will require a new approach though, so in that regard it will be interesting to see what opportunities it throws up.

**Nicky Santoro** · 03-10-09, 06:13 PM

Originally posted by playz

But 1% for accepting a bet either if you win or lose is the essentially the same thing as 2%. .

bingo.

this is fukkin bullshit. don't fall for this shit.. it's still 2%.. the only way this benefits you is if most of your games you put up are matched, then it's good.. you dont pay anything.

aside from that, don't let the wording fool you.

1% for the whole baseball season was also great. i hope they bring that back, too.

**playz** · 03-10-09, 06:17 PM

Here's a better example just say a person is a 50% player and he plays mostly sides and totals at all even lines. If he places 100 bets at $100 a piece at the current commission rate and wins 50 of the bets. 2% commission that's $100 paid in commission.

Okay now options 2 that matchbook is going to instate... Same situation. 100 bets are placed at 100 a piece. 50 don't win.. but you have to pay 1% of these still. 5000 in action x 1% is $50. Then you have the winning bets 50 x 100 = 5,000 x 1% upfront and 1% winning.. that's 100. SO 50+100 = 150 you are paying out in commissions.

Essentially if you are an accepter you are paying 50% more is commission so you lose.

**HeeeHAWWWW** · 03-10-09, 06:17 PM

Originally posted by Nicky Santoro

bingo.

this is fukkin bullshit. don't fall for this shit.. it's still 2%.

Not if you bet long odds though, since you only pay 1% on lower of risk/win. Say $100 at +400.....

With the old setup, you pay 2% on $400 winnings. In other words, $100 stake, returns $492 if you win, or effective odds +392.

With 1% on volume, you pay $100, and $1 charge win or lose. Thus $101 stake, returns $500 if you win, or effective odds +395.

**playz** · 03-10-09, 06:29 PM

Originally posted by playz

Here's a better example just say a person is a 50% player and he plays mostly sides and totals at all even lines. If he places 100 bets at $100 a piece at the current commission rate and wins 50 of the bets. 2% commission that's $100 paid in commission.

Okay now options 2 that matchbook is going to instate... Same situation. 100 bets are placed at 100 a piece. 50 don't win.. but you have to pay 1% of these still. 5000 in action x 1% is $50. Then you have the winning bets 50 x 100 = 5,000 x 1% upfront and 1% winning.. that's 100. SO 50+100 = 150 you are paying out in commissions.

Essentially if you are an accepter you are paying 50% more is commission so you lose.

Okay I re-read the website .. I'm wrong I don't know where I got that commission structure from but this is better... 100 bets using $100/bet at even 50% winning odds

Now: $100 paid in commission
New system: $100 paid in commission

So that is the same thing.. but if you bet on big dogs it benefits you because of the lesser amount being charged and if you are a market maker it benefits you even more.

Conclusion: The new system is essentially the same for the market better. It is a lot better for the market maker.. this will increase liquidity.

Good job by Matchy

**bigugly** · 03-10-09, 06:39 PM

I'll be happier than ever to pay whatever commission if I can get better odds from tighter lines on all events.

**WileOut** · 03-10-09, 06:44 PM

Originally posted by playz

Then you have the winning bets 50 x 100 = 5,000 x 1% upfront and 1% winning.. that's 100. SO 50+100 = 150 you are paying out in commissions.

Essentially if you are an accepter you are paying 50% more is commission so you lose.

Where do you get 1% upfront and 1% winning? Its just 1% of your wins. You are adding an extra 1% they are not charging.

A lot of you guys are making this out to be a lot more complicated than it is.

Now that I think about it, this structure has everyone paying less. Take a guy who accepts an offer at +104. So 100 to win 104. The 1% is taken off of the 100 (because this is the lesser amount), so the commission is only 1% which is $1. In the past it would have been 2% of $104. Which is obviously more than $1. Then of course they take the money on the losses, but again they take it on the lesser of the two amounts.

The net effect of this is a higher EV on all bets versus the old system. You have a higher expected value on any bet you make with the new structure versus the old.

This is not even taking into account that you will be playing in very tight markets because this will dramatically increase liquidity once people realize that this is a better deal than it even was before. And before this new structure matchbook was already the best place to play.

Now if they shore up the depositing thing they will have the market cornered for live markets, sides, totals, and ML's.

Another thing, the higher percentage of your bets you win, the more this system helps you versus the old system. The lower the percentage of bets you win the more the new system hurts you.

**Santo** · 03-10-09, 07:00 PM

Not everyone will pay less.

Under the old system, if somebody bet 2000 on both sides at -100 and +102, you would have made ~$20 on each side, minus 2% gives +$19.60

Under the new system, you would pay $40 in fees, for a net of -$20.

**Wheell** · 03-10-09, 07:03 PM

This is clearly fantastic for most players and awful for the players who would bet a side with the intent of buying out sometime before game time. I'd say it is a net positive change, but I am curious to see how it plays out over the next 6 months or so.

**WileOut** · 03-10-09, 07:05 PM

Santo, by "everyone paying less" I mean everyone who is not scalping of course. Not sure how much this will hurt scalpers as they will be hit on both sides but again they should be playing into better odds so I guess that remains to be seen. Also those that trade frequently live it will take more away from them, unless of course you offer. Then again the live markets should be tighter so this also remains to be seen.

But for straight bettors taking a side or ML or total in single games, or for those who make minimal trades live, this is the goods.

**ArunSh** · 03-10-09, 07:25 PM

One interesting thing about this new system: Say there is a +105 line on some game which I like the price of and someone has made an offer of. However, I would clearly rather have a +105 offer of mine be accepted rather than accepting someone else's offer due to the commission. Heck, I would even rather have a +104 offer of mine taken rather than accepting a +105 as that still will make me more $ if you take commission into account.

If I put up a +105 offer or a +104 in that situation, am I obligated to accept the current offer, or can I make my own offer (under the current system it will automatically accept if you offer that way)? Perhaps you will still be forced to accept, it being first come first serve essentially. But if you are not obligated to accept, there might be lines where there is no juice or even +101 juice.

**Santo** · 03-10-09, 07:40 PM

You will be forced to accept, that's the core concept of the betting exchange. You can't have orders not crossing with the way Matchbook are set up (At BF you can, because the back and lay side are separate for both teams, though they've recently started taking the margins there for themselves)

**u21c3f6** · 03-10-09, 07:46 PM

This can also be frustrating for the times when you think you are about to put up an offer but someone gets the opposite side in ahead of you and now your bet becomes an acceptance.

Joe.

**ArunSh** · 03-10-09, 09:03 PM

Under the old system you were forced to accept yes, but are you sure that will stay true under the new system? In the old, given the way commission worked it made no sense to not automatically match if you did so. Now that it does, they may well change the system, who knows?

**andywend** · 03-11-09, 01:00 AM

I believe Matchbook is making a mistake with this new pricing scheme.

Matchbook has always marketed themselves as a live betting platform as opposed to the regular pre-game betting sportsbook.

If you only bet the regular way (pre-game) this change is much much better for you for a number of reasons.

However, if you trade live going back and forth between the 2 teams as the game progresses, the trading fees are really going to add up quickly.

I believe this new pricing scheme is going to have an EXTREMELY NEGATIVE effect on live game in-running trading unless the 0.2% bonus for offering orders attracts a whole bunch of additional liquidity.

I believe that Matchbook is going to be extremely disappointed with the huge reduction in volume of in-running trading that takes place during featured events and they will either scrap this new plan or they will offer a different commission setup for live game trading as opposed to pre-game betting.

**DeluxeLiner** · 03-11-09, 01:11 AM

Originally posted by andywend

I believe Matchbook is making a mistake with this new pricing scheme.

Matchbook has always marketed themselves as a live betting platform as opposed to the regular pre-game betting sportsbook.

If you only bet the regular way (pre-game) this change is much much better for you for a number of reasons.

However, if you trade live going back and forth between the 2 teams as the game progresses, the trading fees are really going to add up quickly.

I believe this new pricing scheme is going to have an EXTREMELY NEGATIVE effect on live game in-running trading unless the 0.2% bonus for offering orders attracts a whole bunch of additional liquidity.

I believe that Matchbook is going to be extremely disappointed with the huge reduction in volume of in-running trading that takes place during featured events and they will either scrap this new plan or they will offer a different commission setup for live game trading as opposed to pre-game betting.

So this new thing could be a double edged sword here.

So answer me this....i used to just get charged 2% of my winnings in a market, now i am going to get tacked every time i accept a bet. So I could get owned if I am scalping a live game and just accepting bets, especially if I like to be really active. Who would want to accept bets?

And I also agree that people are going to have to give up most of the 1.2% swing by having things look at this...

Example of a toss up game...
Giants +101
Jets +101

this could very well happen?