MATCHBOOK says goodbye to 2% commission...

[WileOut]

No bounced check in the new system if an even odds bet of 100 is accepted they take 1% out of 100. If he wins they give him back $199. I don't know where you are getting $198.

Its 1% on wins and 1% on losses.

The reason why this system is better is because they take the commission out of the LOWER of the risk/win amount whereas in the past they would take 2% out of the winning amount, no matter whether it was the risk or win amount.

[bettilimbroke999]

This new system sucks dick, you charge ppl a percentage when they win, u dont charge them commission on their LOSSES too, fukin unreal

[Mark Shark]

You have made it very clear for everyone. Thanks

[Mark Shark]

This new system sucks dick, you charge ppl a percentage when they win, u dont charge them commission on their LOSSES too, fukin unreal

they have made it really clear haven't they. Everyone seems to be having problems with this. Fancy losing a bet and then getting charged 1% on top of your loses. How stupid...

[BouncedCheck]

No bounced check in the new system if an even odds bet of 100 is accepted they take 1% out of 100. If he wins they give him back $199. I don't know where you are getting $198.

Its 1% on wins and 1% on losses.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but it's 1% on WHAT exactly?

You're saying if you win, it's 1% of your win, but if you lose, it's 1% of what?

I think they take 1% of the lower amount (risk or to-win) BEFORE the bet is graded. Then whatever is left is your actual risk amount.

That's the only way I can understand this working. Otherwise they'll be paying out $200.20 of a $200.00 pot on some bets, depending on whether the offerer or acceptor wins, and that is not going to fly.

Doing it your way, that means if you bet $100 as an acceptor and win, your payout is $199 and MB takes their 80 cents with 20 cents going back to the offerer... ok, all well and good......

But if you bet $100 as an acceptor and lose, the offerer gets his $100 in risk returned to him, plus $100 in winnings (funded by your loss) plus 20 cents in subsidized (or "reversed") commission. That means MB is losing 20 cents on the deal UNLESS ----- they take out your 1% commission from your account AFTER you lose, which would be $1 extra on top of your loss.

So in reality, you'd be laying $101 to win $99. In other words, you'd still be paying approximately 2% on your winnings IF you win. Whether it's 1.99999998% or 2.00000001% is a question better answered by someone with better math skills than I have. The difference here is obviously negligible.

Let's do a couple more examples....

Offerer takes an underdog at +300 and lays out $100 to win $300. You take the favorite and lay $300.

There's a pot of $400. The commission is going to be the same as in the last example because the lower amount of the bet (risk or to-win) is $100, same as when we were betting $100 even money.

Scenario 1 (my way): MB takes the commission before the bet and you win. That means you've paid $1 to MB and your actual bet is only $299, not $300. If you win, you win $99.67 and get your $299 risk returned to you, for a payout of $398.67, and the offerer gets back 20 cents, so his actual loss is only $99.80. MB takes only $1.33 of the original $400 pot. UNDER THE OLD SYSTEM YOUR PAYOUT WOULD BE ONLY $398.00 INSTEAD OF $398.67 WITH THIS NEW SYSTEM.

Scenario 2 (my way): MB takes the 1% commission before the bet and you lose. That means you've paid $1 in commission and wagered $299 and lost. The offerer collects his original $100 in risk plus your $299 plus 20 cents for a total of $399.20. MB takes the remaining 80 cents. UNDER THE OLD SYSTEM YOUR LOSS WOULD BE $300 AND DOES NOT CHANGE WITH THIS NEW SYSTEM.

Scenario 3 (your way): MB takes the 1% commission after you win. You lay $300 to win $100 and MB pays you $399. They give 20 cents to the offerer and keep 80 cents in commission. UNDER THE OLD SYSTEM YOUR PAYOUT WOULD BE ONLY $398.00 INSTEAD OF $399.00 WITH THIS NEW SYSTEM.

Scenario 4 (your way): MB takes the 1% commission after you lose. Your $300 goes to the offerer in addition to his $100 risk and his 20 cent reverse commission, so the offerer gets a payout totaling $400.20, when the original pot was only $400.00. You now have to pay your 1% so MB can make a profit. Therefore, you've effectively laid out $301 to win $98. UNDER THE OLD SYSTEM YOUR LOSS WOULD BE $300 AND NOW IT'S $301 UNDER THIS NEW SYSTEM.

Either you're wrong and I'm right, or MB is pulling a horrible scam on people who don't take the time to figure this stuff out.

Opposite example - offerer takes the favorite at -300 and you take the underdog by laying $100.

Scenario 1 (my way): MB takes the commission before the bet and you win. You lay $100 and MB takes 1% so therefore your effective bet is $99. When you win, you get the $99 risk returned plus $297 in winnings, for a total of $396. The offerer gets 20 cents, and MB keeps $3.80. UNDER THE OLD SYSTEM YOUR PAYOUT WOULD BE ONLY $394 INSTEAD OF $396 WITH THIS NEW SYSTEM.

Scenario 2 (my way): MB takes the commission before the bet and you lose. The offerer gets back his $300 in risk plus your $99 bet plus his 20 cents in reverse commission, for a total payout of $399.20. MB keeps 80 cents. UNDER THE OLD SYSTEM YOUR LOSS WOULD BE $100 AND DOES NOT CHANGE WITH THIS NEW SYSTEM.

Scenario 3 (your way): MB takes the 1% commission after you win. You lay $100 to win $300 and MB pays you $399. They give 20 cents to the offerer and keep 80 cents in commission. UNDER THE OLD SYSTEM YOUR PAYOUT WOULD BE ONLY $394 INSTEAD OF $399 WITH THIS NEW SYSTEM.

Scenario 4 (your way): MB takes the 1% commission after you lose. The offerer gets his $300 plus your $100 plus 20 cents for a total payout of $400.20. Then MB takes another $1 from you and ends up with a profit of 80 cents. Therefore, you've effectively laid out $101 to win $298. UNDER THE OLD SYSTEM YOUR LOSS WOULD BE $100 AND NOW IT'S $101 UNDER THIS NEW SYSTEM.

[BouncedCheck]

Bottom line - if I'm right, this system helps everyone except the scalpers, just like MB claims.

If WileOut is right, MB just got a lot worse for everybody.

[BouncedCheck]

Scalper example:

Let's say the scalper is the acceptor on both his bets. He bets the favorite at -156 and the underdog at +158.

He puts $156 on the favorite and $100 on the underdog.

USING MY INTERPRETATION OF THE NEW SYSTEM:

BET #1: $1.00 is taken out in commission and $155.00 is left to be wagered. At -156 the winnings will be $99.36 if the favorite wins. The loss will be $156 if the favorite loses.

BET #2: $1.00 is taken out in commission and $99.00 is left to be wagered. At +158 the winnings will be $156.42 if the underdog wins. The loss will be $100 if the underdog loses.

IF FAVORITE WINS: $99.36 - $100.00 = SCAPLER LOST $0.64.
IF UNDERDOG WINS: $156.42 - $156.00 = SCALPER WON $0.42.

**************************************** ******

USING WILEOUT'S INTERPRETATION OF THE SYSTEM:

BET #1: At -156 the winnings will be $100 MINUS $1 commission = $99 if the favorite wins. The loss will be $157 if the favorite loses.

BET #2: At +158 the winnings will be $158 MINUS $1 in commission = $157 if the underdog wins. The loss will be $101 if the underdog loses.

IF FAVORITE WINS: $99 - $101 = SCALPER LOST $2.
IF UNDERDOG WINS: $157-$157 = SCALPER BROKE EVEN

**************************************** ******

Either scenario is bad for scalpers. It might be possible to tweek the amounts of each bet a little to ensure a positive result, but the margins are so small it's really not worth the time and effort involved. The final result is that scalpers will have to get a much wider margin under the new system compared to the old system to turn a profit. +/-2% as in this example is going to be insufficient. There's going to have to be a substantial difference, such as -155 and +161.

[Mark Shark]

It just keeps getting clearer and clearer all the time.

[bettilimbroke999]

This really doesnt make any fukin sense, this new system seems to be hated by matchbook's customers and it doesnt even make sense for matchbook's bottom line

Old way

Bet 100 and matched at +100, one guy loses and pays nothing the other wins and pays 2 dollars commission but its no big deal b/c thats just the cost of using an exchange when u win

New way

Bet 100 and matched at +100, one guy accepts and pays 1 dollar the other guy offers and is paid .20, matchbook makes only 80 cents on the same transaction that would have made them 2 bucks, except now half the time the guy who lost has to pay a 1% commission on his lost bet so hes fukin pissed they charged him on a loss

Also the old way encouraged arbing and thus more bet matching bc you could lock in a profit, maybe even just a small profit

Example you bet 1000 at +100 and then arb it later on at +104 with a 980 bet that locks in a 20 dollar profit on either side, not much but hey a free 20 for nothing is nice, under the old system the comm is virtually nothing of 40 cents, the new system the commission is 1980 * .01 or 19.80, so you only made 20 cents, or you could have a risk-free bet instead by simply betting 1000 on the other side for either a breakeven or 40 dollar profit under the old system you would now either lose 20 or win 20 under the new system b/c of the shit fuk way matchbook is screwing with their commission rules

For you live bettors that try to arb profits or limit losses you get fuked hard as well, now you have to calculate not only the correct arb amount to breakeven but to profit enough to cover the commissions on the bets as well (profits that would've under the old system been 98% yours)

Matchbook come on guys, this new system fukin sucks, no idea who came up with this crap concept but hopefully you guys either change the system or scrap it all together and realize the old system is perfect, hell raise the comm to 3% on net profits if u want to but paying a commission on losses and charging commissions based on bet size rather than the net profit is insane, you just saw in the above examples you would be incredibly overcharging anyone who arbs, live bets, or even decides to back out of a bet and would be charging ppl commission on losing bets which just fukin sucks, please reconsider this terrible change to your site

[hhsilver]

when I called for info 2 years ago, the pitch I was given was that I could "bet both sides of a game and pay comm only on the net profit". This was the big selling point. I tried it and liked it.

I'm very sad it is coming to an end.

I realize that they made little comm from me, but for every losing side I had in my arb, there was a winner paying 2%. Unless that winner was also arbing . I think that's the problem for matchbook under the current system. It seems like the only action for a lot of the games involving lesser known teams comes from market makers/scalpers. I can't see the large market makers being willing to continue under the new system. I am guessing they will not have the same new structure as the rest of us. I realize they will not pay comm on their offers that are accepted, but they, I am sure , also accept bets when the odds change . I know because I am their often their "victim".

[Santo]

I think ultimately they're now committed to trying it, and people will then vote with their wallets.

[evo34]

Is this really that hard? BouncedCheck is trying to suggest they would take the comm out of your risk amount, thus reducing your bet size. Why? Nothing about the way Matchbook applies comm presently, nor anything in their announcement of the new structure suggests this kind of odd procedure. When you risk an amount, you risk exactly that amount. Then if you win, you win exactly what the gross odds indicate. Then any applicable commissions will be deducted from your account. The net effect for liquidity takers is paying ~2 cents at -100, ~3 cents at -200, ~4 cents at -300, etc. -- which is slightly better than the current rates.

Yes, it kills active in-game trading. But this doesn't affect most people, and I think Matchbook is more concerned about taking care of this majority than the smaller population of in-game pikers...though, as people suggest, they will prob. adjust rates for live betting.

[Pedro]

Can somebody confirm where it exactly says on the Matchbook site that 1% is being applied twice?

If accept an offer at $100 (at +100), I get dinged for $1 upfront + I get dinged 1% for the $100 that I win?

Can someone confirm where this information is provided by Matchbook because my interpretation of what they have on the website is that they only ding you ONCE with 1%. Either upfront (if you lose) or after if you win, not both upfront and after.

Pedro

[Dark Horse]

when I called for info 2 years ago, the pitch I was given was that I could "bet both sides of a game and pay comm only on the net profit". This was the big selling point. I tried it and liked it.

I'm very sad it is coming to an end.

Exactly. Going back a few years, Tradesports tried a similar idea (different numbers, but same principle). It did not work. People just didn't trade as much anymore, and many switched to up-and-coming ... Matchbook. While it is hard to pinpoint the exact moment, this change in policy may well have been the beginning of the end for TS.

The funny thing is that TS tried to sell it in the same way, as being beneficial to the trader, while it was obvious to the traders that it was far more beneficial to TS. Ten trades during one game, all with commission -on the amount!-, versus one commission over the profit after the game? Not even close.

[Santo]

That was the moment I stopped trading in-running at tradesports, they were never good for pre-game price movements (on major sports, I had a memorable Wimbledon and some good profits on other minor sports there).

I've never traded in-game at Matchbook, but have done substantial pre-game stuff; that will likely stop or be significantly reduced, though I'll hold fire on final decisions until I've had a week or so with the new system to see what's possible. Luckily it would hurt me a lot less now (income-wise) than it would have in the past.

[WileOut]

I'm not saying you're wrong, but it's 1% on WHAT exactly?

You're saying if you win, it's 1% of your win, but if you lose, it's 1% of what?

I think they take 1% of the lower amount (risk or to-win) BEFORE the bet is graded. Then whatever is left is your actual risk amount.

That's the only way I can understand this working. Otherwise they'll be paying out $200.20 of a $200.00 pot on some bets, depending on whether the offerer or acceptor wins, and that is not going to fly.

Doing it your way, that means if you bet $100 as an acceptor and win, your payout is $199 and MB takes their 80 cents with 20 cents going back to the offerer... ok, all well and good......

But if you bet $100 as an acceptor and lose, the offerer gets his $100 in risk returned to him, plus $100 in winnings (funded by your loss) plus 20 cents in subsidized (or "reversed") commission. That means MB is losing 20 cents on the deal UNLESS ----- they take out your 1% commission from your account AFTER you lose, which would be $1 extra on top of your loss.

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

If you LOSE (which was one of your questions) then they take commission on the lessor of your risk/win amounts. So if you risk 104 to win 100 and lose the bet, then you lose 1% on the 100 (BECAUSE ITS THE LESSOR AMOUNT) and the 104. So you lose 105 dollars. Is that really hard?

If you had won that bet then you would have won 99 dollars because again they take the 1% off the lessor of two risk/win amounts, which in this case is 100.

All this happens after the bet is accepted of course. They wait until the results are in to decide who gets charged what, because they have to. Just like your bookie has to wait until the game is over to decide whether you lose 330 or win 300.

Guys if you are having a hard time with this then I don't think you should be using matchbook. Stick to your bookie that takes your entire savings when you lose and gives you a lollypop when you win. Why is it when something is introduced that is more advantageous to the bettor than the simple risk 110 to win 100 people go ape shiiiit. Its really like 3rd grade math here.

On to your next problem bouncer. You said "Doing it your way, that means if you bet $100 as an acceptor and win, your payout is $199 and MB takes their 80 cents with 20 cents going back to the offerer... ok, all well and good......"

Why are you talking about 80 cents and 20 cents? You are again over complicating it. The man who offered the bet of -104 to win 100 gets .2% on top of the LESSOR OF THE 2 AMOUNTS, which is again 100. So if you lose your bet, the offerer gets the 104 (because for him its +104, remember he offered you -104) plus .2% of 100. Which is 20 cents. So the offerer here gets $104.20 if he wins. If you win and the offerer loses, then he gets 20 cents from matchbook for having a 100 offer accepted, and he loses 100 to you. So the offerer here loses $100-$0.20= $99.80. YOU win the 100 minus the 1% commission (which you pay to matchbook) which is $1 dollar. So again you win 99 dollars.

By the way, the offerer gets 0.2% whether the bet wins or loses. This is paid to him by matchbook, not by you. So quit breaking it down into .80 and .20. Commissions are either paid to matchbook or paid by matchbook. The offerers and bettors don't pay commissions to each other. Also the offerer never pays any commission, he always gets .2%, win or lose.

Bouncer you said "But if you bet $100 as an acceptor and lose, the offerer gets his $100 in risk returned to him, plus $100 in winnings (funded by your loss) plus 20 cents in subsidized (or "reversed") commission. That means MB is losing 20 cents on the deal UNLESS ----- they take out your 1% commission from your account AFTER you lose, which would be $1 extra on top of your loss."

Ok when you say "bet" are you talking about risking or to win? Its important to distinguish this here.

EXAMPLE: If you risk 100 to win 104 as an acceptor and lose, the offerer gets 100 back plus .2% commission of the lesser of the 2 amounts, which is 100. So he gets 20 cents on top of 100 for a total of $100.20

There is no 1% taken out for offerers. They only get paid commission.

For matchbook, in this example (and all others) they get the 1% from you minus the .2% paid in commission to the offerer. So they come out ahead 0.8% in this and all examples.

Even if you had won, it would have been the same. You would have won 104 minus $1 dollar in commission so $103 total. The offerer would have lost 104 and gotten paid 20 cents from matchbook. Matchbook still would come out ahead .8% or 80 cents. Either way, whether you win or lose matchbook gets 80 cents in this example.

IN ALL EXAMPLES, MATCHBOOK NETS 0.8% OF THE LESSOR OF THE RISK/WIN AMOUNTS.

This is as clear as I can make it. This is not "my version". This is the version matchbook put into place.

[Dark Horse]

That was the moment I stopped trading in-running at tradesports, they were never good for pre-game price movements (on major sports, I had a memorable Wimbledon and some good profits on other minor sports there).

I've never traded in-game at Matchbook, but have done substantial pre-game stuff; that will likely stop or be significantly reduced, though I'll hold fire on final decisions until I've had a week or so with the new system to see what's possible. Luckily it would hurt me a lot less now (income-wise) than it would have in the past.

It's like these boards of directors come together during challenging times, and ask everyone to come up with a structure that is more profitable yet also more user-friendly. TS made a few changes over the years, none of which were popular, and one of which may have been in response to traders shifting to Matchbook. TS could have cornered the market, when they had little or no competition, but instead they started to micromanage and alienate traders. The TS people didn't really understand the betting world, though. Their background was in finance and they had the -great- idea to translate the concept of financial trading into sports trading. Matchbook has a good grasp of the betting industry, so I would think they will deal with new challenges in a more flexible way.

[Santo]

A major hindrance to TS, which I never understood their inflexibility on, was that the TBX (betting exchange) interface that would be more familiar to most (it could show bets in US odds like Matchbook & decimal like Betfair) only worked in Internet Explorer, and even then was horribly buggy. This meant anyone serious had to use the Tradesports/InTrade-style interface, which had a far steeper learning curve and was never going to attract public money.

I must have raised it with people there 4-5 times a year for probably 3-4 years, was never fixed.

[WileOut]

Trade Sports went out of business because they were taking out like 4% commission when matchbook was taking out half of that. Now matchbook has introduced a great new way where most bettors and market makers will make even more money. Its not sneaky, its not tricky. Its very straight forward and as I've said before it ends up with straight bettors getting higher EV on their bets (as Ganch pointed out). Scalpers may lose out but matchbook has acknowledged that. The bottom line is that most bettors and market makers will make more money this way.

I don't know how this will affect matchbooks bottom line though. I don't know what percentage of their players scalp and what percent use the live markets, but it would seem like they would need a lot of action in the live markets for this to work. I also believe this new method will vastly increase liquidity because it gives everyone more profit.

Joe Six Pack will not understand the new structure and may be scared away from it. Hell, many were scared away from the 2% structure so this new way, although bettor for the bettors, may scare even more of the recreational types away.

[Santo]

Your second paragraph is the key one. Those of us who watch/use the markets daily know (well, have a pretty good idea) how much of the volume is being generated by market makers / scalpers, as do Matchbook. The question is whether there will be enough liquidity from "Regular Joe" to replace that liquidity. I'm not convinced, but time will tell.

[bettilimbroke999]

This new system sucks WileOut, one of the great advantages to a betting exchange is to bet both sides when the odds have changed to lock in a profit or be able to back out of a bet to minimize your loss or breakeven at any time if u choose to do so by betting the other side and since you're only paying 2% on the net profits you can make a 2% profit on your investment and you are only charged 2% on that profit for a net gain of 1.96% when u lock in a profit and nothing in commissions when u back out or have a net loss arb, by charging 1% on each bet you have paid nearly 100% commission on your winnings and if u back out of a bet when u change your mind you have to pay a 20 dollar fee

1000 @ +100, 980 @ +104, profit either way 20 dollars minus 40 cents commission, the new way its 20 dollars MINUS 19.80 COMMISSION

[hhsilver]

Trade Sports went out of business because they were taking out like 4% commission when matchbook was taking out half of that. Now matchbook has introduced a great new way where most bettors and market makers will make even more money.....

I don't agree with what you say about market makers, UNLESS they get their own deal and are not subject to the new setup. I know they mostly make offers and therefore will get the 0.2% when matched, but I'm pretty sure they do not only make offers. It seems they do a lot of accepting when line/odds moves warrant it and that 2% on their net would be far less than 1% on the bets they need to accept in order to balance their books.

By the way, it was very nice of you to offer your patient and clear explanation to 'bounced check'. "3rd grade math" might be an exaggeration , but it sure aint advanced calculus.

[coldhardfacts]

I realize I'm a simple man, but I don't see what the fuss is about. If you accept an offer of $100 at +104, you will in effect be betting $99 to win $102.96, and paying $1 to matchbook. So, you will in effect be getting 1.0296, not 1.04. Under the old system, you would have been betting $100 to win $104, but in effect would have been betting $100 to win $102.08, since they would have taken 2% of your winning bet.

So now you're getting 1.0296 to 1 vs. 1.0208 to 1. What's not to like????

[u21c3f6]

I realize I'm a simple man, but I don't see what the fuss is about. If you accept an offer of $100 at +104, you will in effect be betting $99 to win $102.96, and paying $1 to matchbook. So, you will in effect be getting 1.0296, not 1.04. Under the old system, you would have been betting $100 to win $104, but in effect would have been betting $100 to win $102.08, since they would have taken 2% of your winning bet.

So now you're getting 1.0296 to 1 vs. 1.0208 to 1. What's not to like????

If you accept an offer for $100 at +104, if you lose you will pay $101, if you win you will receive $103.

Joe.

[hhsilver]

I realize I'm a simple man, but I don't see what the fuss is about. If you accept an offer of $100 at +104, you will in effect be betting $99 to win $102.96, and paying $1 to matchbook. So, you will in effect be getting 1.0296, not 1.04. Under the old system, you would have been betting $100 to win $104, but in effect would have been betting $100 to win $102.08, since they would have taken 2% of your winning bet.

So now you're getting 1.0296 to 1 vs. 1.0208 to 1. What's not to like????

i think it should be :

in your first case >>>>

risk 101 (100 bet + 1 comm) to win 103 (104 - 1 comm)

this means the odds are really + 101.98

( I don't think they will subtract the comm from your bet, but simply from your balance --- I assume that if you don't have enough in account to cover both the bet and the comm , the system will tell you to bet less, just like it does now)

and in your 2nd case ( current system)

risk 100 to win 104 x .98 = 101.92

not as big a difference as you state.

[coldhardfacts]

i think it should be :

in your first case >>>>

risk 101 (100 bet + 1 comm) to win 103 (104 - 1 comm)

this means the odds are really + 101.98

( I don't think they will subtract the comm from your bet, but simply from your balance --- I assume that if you don't have enough in account to cover both the bet and the comm , the system will tell you to bet less, just like it does now)

and in your 2nd case ( current system)

risk 100 to win 104 x .98 = 101.92

not as big a difference as you state.

What makes you think that they'll charge 1% on the payout? The explanation on the website says or implies nothing of the kind.

Also, I can't believe that they won't take 1% off the top when you make your bet. Why wouldn't they???

[Dark Horse]

Brokers charge you a commission on how much they trade for you. But, in a more perfect world, they should instead be getting a commission on how much they earned you. In that sense, MB, just as TS before them, just made a move in the wrong direction.

If Matchbook would lift this new rule for live trading, I may have a different opinion. Imagine making ten trades during a game, and ended up with a loss. And on top of that you're also charged 1% on every amount you traded. Live trading is fast, so you don't have time to sit and wait for someone to fill your order. So if you traded at 2K increments, that means you're down an extra 200 bucks (10x20). Just like that. Nice going, Matchbook...

At the very least give people a choice what type of account they want: 2% on profit from a game, or 1% on all trades.

[evo34]

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.

[bettilimbroke999]

Brokers charge you a commission on how much they trade for you. But, in a more perfect world, they should instead be getting a commission on how much they earned you. In that sense, MB, just as TS before them, just made a move in the wrong direction.

If Matchbook would lift this new rule for live trading, I may have a different opinion. Imagine making ten trades during a game, and ended up with a loss. And on top of that you're also charged 1% on every amount you traded. Live trading is fast, so you don't have time to sit and wait for someone to fill your order. So if you traded at 2K increments, that means you're down an extra 200 bucks (10x20). Just like that. Nice going, Matchbook...

At the very least give people a choice what type of account they want: 2% on profit from a game, or 1% on all trades.

Very sharp post, if u actively trade in live betting you'll be paying many times more commission, its not 200 on 2000 like u said but its 20 on 2000 which is bad enough when before you would've had to win a 1000 to pay that much commission, now you pay that just for trying REGARDLESS OF WHETHER U WON OR LOST , ridiculous move by matchbook if they apply these new rules to live betting but they probably will b/c thats how fukin retarded this industry is

[WileOut]

bettilimbroke the new system works out better for most bettors. Most bettors don't scalp. Thats the bottom line.

It also hurts those people who bet in the live markets a lot, like me. However I can adjust and offer bad odds for people to take at certain points during a game and just offer now mostly and accept minimally. No biggie.

Buy and hold, thats what this does for live markets. It encourages buy and hold. Same for regular non live games as well I guess.

[andywend]

WileOut, saying the new Matchbook system works out better for most bettors is the same thing as saying that increasing taxes is of advantage to most people.

You favor this new commission structure because you don't trade live actively.

Below I am copying and pasting from the Matchbook site:

A FAREWELL TO 2% COMMISSIONSNext week, Matchbook will dramatically cut commissions by eliminating our 2% net-win commission system and shifting to a much simpler volume-based one. Matchbook won't earn as much per trade, but we believe this change will drive the next phase of growth on the exchange.

How is this new commission system SIMPLER? It is far more complicated. All Matchbook has to do is read this thread to see that.

Matchbook won't earn as much per trade? That statement is crazy. They earn much more because they are charging commission ON EVERY TRADE as opposed to only charging 2% commission on net win.

This change was made because Matchbook THINKS it will increase their revenue. However, if they decide to implement this change for live trading, then live trading volumes are going to DECLINE DRAMATICALLY and so will their revenues.

Paying traders 0.2% to submit offers is NOT going to increase live trading liquidity because its extremely difficult to price events on the fly. Also, traders are going to be EXTREMELY HESITANT accepting larger volume offers knowing they are getting hit with 1% on each trade.

I admit charging 2% on net win has been a great deal all along for traders and I could understand if Matchbook wants to increase it. However, its irritating that they are trying to pass off this trading commission INCREASE as a trading commission reduction because it isn't.

[noyb]

Buy and hold, thats what this does for live markets.

exactly, this system encourages to buy and and hold. and when everybody would buy and hold, there would be nothing on offer -> no liquidity.

altough it doesn't hurt me, to me it seems like a very strange move of matchbook. regardless of the intellectual capabilities of some, the fact it took so many posts for a few people here to understand how the system works tells me it is too complicated for many to be comfortable using it.

if they would really want to improve their business, start targeting people outside the us and get rid of that ridiculous system of charging idiotic fees on e-wallets and then giving them back in commission credits to winners (therefore, alienating losers from their exchange who only build more and more com. credits with every deposit and not earning them back, apparently they don't understand those losers are the ones they should do everything to keep onboard).

the com credits makes no sense, this move makes no sense. since matchbook hasn't got any US competition i doubt whether it will catch up with them in a big way. regardless, it's astonishing to see how completely incompetent the management of every betting exchange in the world, excluding betfair, actually is. betfair can pull one arrogant stunt after the other (f.e. the premium charge on winnings) and get away with it, because all other exchanges around them are constantly doing everything wrong.

[UncleChris]

Very sharp post, if u actively trade in live betting you'll be paying many times more commission, its not 200 on 2000 like u said but its 20 on 2000 which is bad enough when before you would've had to win a 1000 to pay that much commission, now you pay that just for trying REGARDLESS OF WHETHER U WON OR LOST , ridiculous move by matchbook if they apply these new rules to live betting but they probably will b/c thats how fukin retarded this industry is

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

[WileOut]

Andy did you read my post right above yours? What did I say?

Since you didn't read it here is what I said:

"It also hurts those people who bet in the live markets a lot, like me. However I can adjust and offer bad odds for people to take at certain points during a game and just offer now mostly and accept minimally. No biggie.

Buy and hold, thats what this does for live markets. It encourages buy and hold. Same for regular non live games as well I guess."

I don't know the exact volume matchbook does live (plus scalp) vs pre-game, but I do know that I can say with some confidence that the volume for pre-game is a good bit more than the live volume + the scalp volume. Therefore it is a good change for most bettors.

I don't know about the guys who put up the big offers. I don't know what kind of deals they are able to work out now. I would think matchbook is giving them better deals than before to up the liquidity.

[WileOut]

exactly, this system encourages to buy and and hold. and when everybody would buy and hold, there would be nothing on offer -> no liquidity.

I was talking about the bettors, not the market makers. I would think that matchbook is giving the market makers plenty of incentive to post offers. They advertise 0.2%, and maybe the big market makers can get better.

How do regular books get by if what you say above is true? Because nobody is scalping at the same 20 cent books, they are buying and holding at those places, places like TheGreek. Is TheGreek hurting because most buy and hold?

The biggest problem for matchbook that I bet will be reconciled in the near future is depositing. They need an easy way for people to deposit. Then they will be doing very well. Liquidity is not going to be a problem. Not with the deals they are giving now that blow pinnacle out of the water.

Look up at the top right. What is the number 1 book amongst SBR posters?