MATCHBOOK says goodbye to 2% commission...

[andywend]

DeluxeLiner, I trade very actively and with considerable volume on live events at Matchbook and I am quite concerned about how this new pricing change will affect live game trading.

I also traded actively at TradeSports before they went offline in November and they used to have a trading fee type commission structure before they switched to a 4% flat commission structure. The reason TradeSports switched structures was because trading volumes were so anemic.

Under this new Matchbook pricing structure, I believe that trading volumes are going to show massive declines as traders are going to be much more hesitant to "accept bets" back and forth the way they used to knowing they are being hit with a 1% fee each and everytime.

The 0.2% rebate for offering prices is NOT enough incentive to increase liquidity during live trading.

I believe this new proposed commission structure will NOT work for live game trading and will be changed within weeks.

As far as regular pre-game betting, this new structure is perfect and there will be MASSIVE 2-sided liquidity with 1 cent spreads on all major sporting events.

Matchbook has indicated they won't make as much money on each trade under this new system. This is only true because trading volumes will decline massively for in running games once traders see how much trading fees they are paying as compared to the old commission structure.

[tomcowley]

This is total crap for MLB compared to last year. You're paying something close to 2% on wins instead of 1%.

[Santo]

They have said it will be further discounted for MLB.

[DeluxeLiner]

DeluxeLiner, I trade very actively and with considerable volume on live events at Matchbook and I am quite concerned about how this new pricing change will affect live game trading.

I also traded actively at TradeSports before they went offline in November and they used to have a trading fee type commission structure before they switched to a 4% flat commission structure. The reason TradeSports switched structures was because trading volumes were so anemic.

Under this new Matchbook pricing structure, I believe that trading volumes are going to show massive declines as traders are going to be much more hesitant to "accept bets" back and forth the way they used to knowing they are being hit with a 1% fee each and everytime.

The 0.2% rebate for offering prices is NOT enough incentive to increase liquidity during live trading.

I believe this new proposed commission structure will NOT work for live game trading and will be changed within weeks.

As far as regular pre-game betting, this new structure is perfect and there will be MASSIVE 2-sided liquidity with 1 cent spreads on all major sporting events.

Matchbook has indicated they won't make as much money on each trade under this new system. This is only true because trading volumes will decline massively for in running games once traders see how much trading fees they are paying as compared to the old commission structure.

ugh. So is the "within matchbook" scalping game over? Their will be 1 cent lines which is sweet but nobody is going to be accepting bets (unless it is the +101 +101 situation) does that make sense?

[bookie]

I believe this new proposed commission structure will NOT work for live game trading and will be changed within weeks.

They have said they don't give a rat's ass about the their in-game markets because they generate such a teeny tiny part of their commissions.

[Dark Horse]

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.

Unless your offer is filled, where you make an additional $8 (2 x $4). But +4 or -20 is not a good choice.

It's terrible if you want to close out a position fast, or trade live, during a game. The more I think about this change, the less I like it. It makes much more sense to charge players a fee on their profit from a game, than to charge them every time they trade during the game. (Forget the +0.02%. That's basically bullsh*t).

When Tradesports started to mess around with their fee structure it just created confusion and doubt. There were other factors, but the fee changes signaled the beginning of the end.

[Mark Shark]

For Scalpers it means if you backed a team at +100 the old way you would only need +101 to make a profit.
The New way however if you backed that team at +100 you need to back the other at +103 or better to make a profit. This will be a lot more difficult to achieve.

[KC]

Very good move, my favorite book just got even better. Now if they could just get the site to run a little smoother on the iPhone...

[username474]

you guys are forgetting that market makers and large account holders had different rates to begin with .they will still be there ,and im sure they got a new deal as well.

[hhsilver]

For Scalpers it means if you backed a team at +100 the old way you would only need +101 to make a profit.
The New way however if you backed that team at +100 you need to back the other at +103 or better to make a profit. This will be a lot more difficult to achieve.

The above is if you accepted that +100.

Then it is even worse than what you say if you

have to go the other was by accepting , you would need +105 ( risk 101 to win 104 --> +102.97) .

The +103 you mention would be enough if you got your offer matched.


I really hate this . For within Matchbook scalpers, it's dreadful.

For people who just go in and make a bet by accepting an existing offer it's no better as they claim.

say you take +107,

now it is risk 100 to win .98x107 = +104.86

next week, it will be risk 101 to win 106 = + 104.95 ( is this difference of .09 what they are saying is so much "better" ??? )


Although , I can see why many think this new setup will cause offerers to offer more generous odds.

Of course, the new is better if you get your offer matched, but that requires possibly a wait you don't have time for and possibly not getting matched and having to subsequently settle for worse odds.

For scalping with MB and another book , it's about the same. Better if you win more at MB. Worse if you lose more at MB.

[HeeeHAWWWW]

next week, it will be risk 101 to win 106 = + 104.95 ( is this difference of .09 what they are saying is so much "better" ??? )

About evens it's pretty much the same, but the further you get from evens the better it gets, because the new setup takes the 1% from the lower of risk/win.

Personally I like it a lot, but then I'm content to queue (always did this at exchanges anyway, since I bet well in advance that's not a problem).

[Matt Rain]

I like the change in theory, but as a straight & flat bettor who usually wagers an hour or so before gametime, I'm afraid I won't be getting a lot of action.

Love the idea of Matchbook and have played there quite a bit, but I hate the waiting game.

[hhsilver]

About evens it's pretty much the same, but the further you get from evens the better it gets, because the new setup takes the 1% from the lower of risk/win.

I see . Thanks for pointing that out. I know it was mentioned earlier , but I didn't think of that when I gave my example. I just did the same thing for +140 and got an improvement of .42 as compared to the .09 of my example above.

[Santo]

you guys are forgetting that market makers and large account holders had different rates to begin with .they will still be there ,and im sure they got a new deal as well.

I am told that at least to start with Market Makers will be subject to the same terms as everyone else.

Edited to add: I think they understand the point we're making, and suspect they will analyse the data from the first few x weeks/months before making a permanent decision, at least on the exact commission rates.

[VBOMBER]

For people who just go in and make a bet by accepting an existing offer it's no better as they claim.

say you take +107,

now it is risk 100 to win .98x107 = +104.86

next week, it will be risk 101 to win 106 = + 104.95 ( is this difference of .09 what they are saying is so much "better" ??? )

Is it not 101 to win 107 (+105.94)? Or I am I missing something? I'm still trying to understand their structure.

[u21c3f6]

Is it not 101 to win 107 (+105.94)? Or I am I missing something? I'm still trying to understand their structure.

If you lose you pay 100 plus 1 in commission or 101. If you win you win 107 less 1 for commission or 106.

Joe.

[ArunSh]

Any idea exactly when this will take effect? They just say "starting next week", does that mean Monday?

[Ganchrow]

VBA Code for converting from gross Matchbook odds to odds net of commission:

Public Function MB2US(ByVal dUSOdds As Double, Optional ByVal dCommission = 0.01)
    Application.Volatile
    If dUSOdds < 0 Then
        MB2US = Dec2US( _
                    1 + (1 - dCommission) / _
                        (-dUSOdds/100 + dCommission) _
                )
    Else
        MB2US = Dec2US( _
                    1 + (dUSOdds/100 - dCommission) / _
                        (1 +  dCommission) _
                )
    End If
End Function


Public Function Dec2US(ByVal DecimalOdds As Double) As Double
    ' IMPORTANT -- This function should only be added if
    ' my Sportsbetting Template isn't already installed
    Application.Volatile
    Dec2US = IIf(DecimalOdds >= 2, _
                     (DecimalOdds - 1) * 100, _
                     -100 / (DecimalOdds - 1) _
    )
End Function

Excel format is:

=MB2US(US Odds, Commission), where commission is optional and defaults to 1%.

So for example in Excel:

=MB2US(+100) = -102.02
=MB2US(-110) = -112.12
=MB2US(+110) = +107.92
=MB2US(-200) = -203.03
=MB2US(+200) = +197.03
=MB2US(+110, -0.2%) = +110.42

Using the http://forum.sbrforum.com/handicappe...tml#post256487 one may obtain the price in scaled (i.e., 0-100) format as requested by darkhorse as follows:

=100*US2PROB(MB2US(US Odds, Commission))

A few comparisons follow:


The MB2US() function and its decimal odds analogue, MB2DEC() are availabler in the latest vesrion of my http://forum.sbrforum.com/handicappe...tml#post256487.

[HeeeHAWWWW]

Thanks, Ganch.

So, relative to the old system, your profits for accepting are almost 1% better at + or -1000, down to 0.6% better at +/- 250, and about 1/3 of a % more at +/- 150. Irrelevant for all but really heavy volume betters.

[Dark Horse]

Great stuff Ganch!

[Mark Shark]

Originally Posted by hhsilver

For people who just go in and make a bet by accepting an existing offer it's no better as they claim.

say you take +107,

now it is risk 100 to win .98x107 = +104.86

next week, it will be risk 101 to win 106 = + 104.95 ( is this difference of .09 what they are saying is so much "better" ??? )

Is it not 101 to win 107 (+105.94)? Or I am I missing something? I'm still trying to understand their structure.

I would have thought it was 100x107 then you subtract the $1 commission leaving you with +106.00 but you are all right this simply is not clear in their description of payouts.

[VBOMBER]

Originally Posted by hhsilver

For people who just go in and make a bet by accepting an existing offer it's no better as they claim.

say you take +107,

now it is risk 100 to win .98x107 = +104.86

next week, it will be risk 101 to win 106 = + 104.95 ( is this difference of .09 what they are saying is so much "better" ??? )





I would have thought it was 100x107 then you subtract the $1 commission leaving you with +106.00 but you are all right this simply is not clear in their description of payouts.

I misunderstood altogether as I thought they were taking the commission out of losing side only when I first glanced at it, but after rereading it I see it is just 1% on every bet when you accept an existing offer win or lose. Thanks for clearing this up guys.

[acw]

They have said they don't give a rat's ass about the their in-game markets because they generate such a teeny tiny part of their commissions.

So I am not the only one that no longer used them for their live betting after multiple "crashes" (I still think they were stealing).

[Mark Shark]

This decision to change commission structure comes as no surprise as it is all left up to the market makers to put up prices and the scalpers just pick them off when the line changes dramatically. So it really doesn't matter if they are getting a reduced commission, they are getting cleaned up by sharp punters.

[Wheell]

sorry, this might be a stupid question: I bet 100 on Alabama at +100. They lose. Do I pay a commission and if so how much?

[AgainstAllOdds]

Wheell, If you were the one who accepted the bet, you would have to pay 1% or 1$.

If you were the one who offered the bet, and someone else accepted, you would get .2% back.

[Wheell]

Thanks for the knowledge.

[Ganchrow]

Simple Matchbook Commission Calculator (US Odds)

Simple Matchbook Commission Calculator

<iframe src=http://btp.sbrforum.com/newcalc/mb.html frameborder=0 height=270></iframe>

[Data]

Ganchrow, why you are counting commission twice? For instance, why is it (dUSOdds/100 - dCommission)? The way I understand the new commission structure it should be just dUSOdds/100.

According to your and hhsuilver's examples, that I think use wrong methodology, the winner will basically pay the same commission while according to Matchbook's description, the winner will pay roughly half of the old commission which will be offset by the loser paying the same amount.

[Ganchrow]

Ganchrow, why you are counting commission twice? For instance, why is it (dUSOdds/100 - dCommission)? The way I understand the new commission structure it should be just dUSOdds/100.

According to your and hhsuilver's examples, that I think use wrong methodology, the winner will basically pay the svame commission while according to Matchbook's description, the winner will pay roughly half of the old commission which will be offset by the loser paying the same amount.

The 1% commission is charged as a percentage of notional (defined as the lesser of "to-win" and "at-risk"). This is exacted win or lose for liquidity takers.

Imagine you have a single unit with which you're looking to take an offer at even odds or longer.

Because the odds are longer than even, your commission is calculated as a percent of risk amount and so it's commission # of units (call it dCommission as above).

So if you lose your bet you'd be out your 1 unit risk + your dCommission units of commission.

If you win your bet you'd win the US Odds at which you bet divided by 100 (call it dUSOdds/100 -- remember we're looking at the case of odds ≥ +100) minus your dCommission units of commission.

So net net you're risking (1 + dCommission) to win (dUSOdds/100 - dCommission).

This corresponds to fractional odds of:

(dUSOdds/100 - dCommission)/(1 + dCommission)

decimal odds of:

1+(dUSOdds/100 - dCommission)/(1 + dCommission)

and US odds of:

100*(dUSOdds/100 - dCommission)/(1 + dCommission)

(Note that for the last equation to be strictly correct one would need to assume initial US odds of at least +102).

Similar logic yields the formula for odds shorter than even.

[Data]

Of course you are right, I "did not want" to pay commission on a winning wager. I totally fooled myself with "loser pays a half" fallacy and overlooked a fact that one of the parties accepts the wager and receives a rebate instead of paying a commission.

[Mark Shark]

Could this get any more complicated for all us simple folk......

[Santo]

Isn't it 0.2% back rather than 0.02%?

[Ganchrow]

Isn't it 0.2% back rather than 0.02%?

It is.

The dropdown had just been displaying improperly.

[Mark Shark]

Does anyone think this change will be for good. What if scalpers run for the hills and they realise this was where the majority of their turnover was coming from? I know I turn between 10k and 25k a day scalping lines. Now I would have been happier if they just doubled the commission to 4% for any wins when betting on both sides rather than 1% win or lose. I can not see me turning over more than a few K's now with the change. They have made it very complicated and I am sure their turnover will decrease. Maybe even their profits.