MATCHBOOK says goodbye to 2% commission...

[u21c3f6]

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".

There is no problem so simple that it can't be made complicated!

Joe.

[DeluxeLiner]

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".

Deducts 1% of every bet win or lose, and only if you accept the bet. I would not be so harsh to these people who are trying to figure this out by ridiculing them and looking like an ass, maybe you should go back to kindergarten and learn to play nice.

[kiwi]

Instead to offer worse conditions for live betting they could have gained more customers if finally they had offered accounts in other currencies than USD (Euro...) - that had been a real progress but concerning this they are just stubborn.

[Ganchrow]

I again refer anyone still having difficulties with these calculation to one or both of my Matchbook Commission Calculator and/or the M2US()/MB2DEC() functions of my http://forum.sbrforum.com/handicappe...tml#post256487.

[Kaps]

...this sucks ...they say that they will further discount baseball ...id like to see how they will do that?

[Matt Rain]

nm

[RogueJuror]

Instead to offer worse conditions for live betting they could have gained more customers if finally they had offered accounts in other currencies than USD (Euro...) - that had been a real progress but concerning this they are just stubborn.

Jakiwit, its unbelievable how they refuse to go multi-currency. Its almost reckless on their part.

[The HG]

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".

I can't do it. I can't do it! I've tried, I can't. 1% - of what? The lesser? ok so you're risking 1% of the lesser amount that you are betting to win 1% less than what you win if the commission is 2%, then you are risking the same as if you were betting 1% less than what you are risking to win if the commission is.....AHHHHHHH! I CAN'T DO IT! HOW DO YOU DO IT?? PLEASE HELP!

[bettilimbroke999]

Do they just straight deduct from your balance, I mean you bet 100 to win a 100, so they deduct 101 from your account or 100 and then your risk is 99? So what if you have 500 in your account and go all in, is there not enough funds to charge you the 1% or are you now risking 495 to win 495, really risking 500 to win 490 which is the same as being charged 2% so there is no difference if you accept, but if you offer youll be making an extra 11 bucks over the old way? Is this right, if so it sounds pretty good? Plus they've lowered the accept fee on live betting to .5% with -.2% comm on offers which doesn't sound too bad

[coldhardfacts]

Especially if you like to take odds, will someone please explain to me how this can be a BAD thing?

Or would you rather lay 1% of $140 on a 7-5 dog in baseball as opposed to 1% of $100???

[Mark Shark]

Plus they've lowered the accept fee on live betting to .5% with -.2% comm on offers which doesn't sound too bad[/quote]

But the old way in live trading if you bet both sides and it went against you and you managed to get out of a position where you got in, you were even. Now you are down 1% for your efforts. That is if you accept bets all the time.

[BouncedCheck]

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".

There is no problem so simple that it can't be made complicated!

Joe.

Hey dumbasses, I'm about to prove you wrong, so get yourself a beer, sit your ass down, and start reading.

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.

Thank you. This is exactly what I was suggesting, because I just recently registered at matchbook and made my first deposit there. I haven't actually started betting yet, so I had no reason to believe they'd institute one policy over the other. The description of the changes on their website is still a little unclear to me, but for the rest of this post, I'll assume you are correct and that the commission will be taken out after the bet is graded, not before as I was trying to suggest earlier.

Ultimately, by choosing a bet amount of $99.48 for my example that Joe and his Uncle Chris didn't seem to appreciate, I illustrated how the actual risk is higher than the bet amount. In other words, my actual risk is $100.48 but my "bet" is $99.49..... continued below........

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.

Hi Joe,

I think you've fallen into a trap in calculating the "win" total of $297.48. Your math makes sense at first glance, but I want to approach it a different way. The discrepancy is in the fact that the risk returned to you upon your win is less than the actual risk you stand to lose. This is why I insisted on discussing payout amounts, not just win amounts. The difference in this discrepancy is the 1% commission.

In this scenario, you'd win $297.48 (as per your calculations, which I agree with) plus your original bet of $99.49 would be returned to you = $396.97. Thus, your total payout once the bet is graded would be this amount, $396.97. From this point on, forget about the number $99.48. It doesn't matter anymore. It was used only to calculate your payout. It does not matter that the bet amount was $99.49. Your actual risk was $100.48.

Your TRUE "win" is the actual payout minus the actual risk.

The actual risk in this case is $100.48 (also as per your calculations, which I agree with) because that's how much you stand to lose in reality. Therefore, your true win total would be $396.97 - $100.48 = $296.49, NOT $297.48 as you suggest.

$296.48 ÷ $100.48 = +295

Go ahead, get a kindergartener to figure that out for you.

pwned!

[Mark Shark]

Oh, who said this was supposed to be easier to work out. 7 pages on this forum debating payouts. Well done Matchbook for making something so easy to understand become so confusing. You should have just charged 10% commission for those of us who bet both sides. You are being greedy and you haven't picked the best financial time to do it.

[BouncedCheck]

Here's some more information.....

On an uneven bet, such as the one discussed here at ±300, each side of the bet must be analyzed separately, because the matched players aren't playing with the same odds.

As indicated earlier, the actual value of a +300 bet, assuming you are the acceptor and MB takes the commission out of the winnings after the bet is graded, is +295.

On a -300 bet under the same conditions, the actual value is -307.

If by some chance I was right about the commission being taken out of the risk before the bet, the actual value of a +300 bet would be +296. Under the same circumstances, the actual value of a -300 bet would be -304.

Under the old system, it was +294 and -306.

[Dazzez]

Why are you idiots stiill "debating" this? You might as well be "debating" the multiplication tables.

Ganchrow/tacomax already explained this completely and clearly several pages ago.

And for anyone too stupid to use an Excel add-in he even posted his "For Dummies" calculator: http://bettingtools.sbrforum.com/newcalc/mb.html.

The only room left for debate on this is whether or not you like the new plan and whether or not you think it will ultimately be good for Matchbook.

If your numbers differ in the slightest from Ganchrow's calculator or spreadsheet functions then guess what? You're doing something wrong.

At 1% COMISSION:

- If you accept a bet at +300 then for every $100 you would stand to lose you would stand to win $296.04.

- If you accept a bet at -300 then for every $100 you would stand to win you would stand to lose $304.04.

If you "disagree" with either of the above statements you're just wrong and are probably more likely to believe in religion than someone who already understands the simple math.

[BouncedCheck]

Hey asshole, it's not totally clear whether they take the commission before or after the bet is graded. It makes a significant difference. I hadn't looked at Ganchrow's calculator until you linked it, but it appears to be programmed using the calculations that will be appropriate if MB takes their commission before the bet is graded. If they take the commission after the bet is graded, as most people on this thread seem to think they will, then the calculator is going to be wrong. And no, I don't believe in religion, and I clearly understand math better than 99% of the people posting in this thread, so either make a genuine attempt to carry on a civil conversation while demonstrating respect for other people, or **** off.

[Dazzez]

Hey asshole, it's not totally clear whether they take the commission before or after the bet is graded. It makes a significant difference. I hadn't looked at Ganchrow's calculator until you linked it, but it appears to be programmed using the calculations that will be appropriate if MB takes their commission before the bet is graded. If they take the commission after the bet is graded, as most people on this thread seem to think they will, then the calculator is going to be wrong. And no, I don't believe in religion, and I clearly understand math better than 99% of the people posting in this thread, so either make a genuine attempt to carry on a civil conversation while demonstrating respect for other people, or **** off.

Whether they take commission out before or after grading is completely irrelevant.

If they were to take the commission out after the bet is graded then the calculator would be just as correct as if they were to take it out before.

Risk $300 to win $100 before comission. Commission taken out after bet graded. Winning bet wins you $100 - $1 comm = $99. Losing bet costs you $300 + $1 = $301. That's a $301 risk to win $99. That's odds of -304.04.

Now if you had only a total of $300 in your account you could only risk $299.0033 in order to win $99.6678 before comission. Commission taken out after bet graded. Winning bet wins you $99.6678 - $99.6678 * 1% = $98.6711. Losing bet loses you $299.0033 + $99.6678 * 1% = $300. That's a risk of $300 to win $98.6711 after commissions. That's odds of -304.04.

Once again for the short bus: Whether they take commission out before or after grading is completely irrelevant.

So listen, BC, the only reason I'm giving you such a hard time is because you're speaking down to others, telling them that they're "dumbasses", when in reality what you need to do is read the words of your clear intellectual superiors a little more carefully.

There's no room left for debate on this.

Why not try to spend a little more effort trying to figure out the error in your reasoning and a little less time talking down to others.

Fine, maybe I'm an asshole. But that doesn't alter the fact that on this one issue I'm still right and you're still wrong.

[bettilimbroke999]

There's too many new *********** on SBR throwin insults around bc they're barrelled in and pissed, if ppl are tryin to get used to a brand new commission system and dont feel like having to use Ganch's calculator everytime they make a bet whats so fukin hard to understand about that. It does matter if they take out the buck beforehand bc what if u go all in, does it say not enough funds since they cant take out the 1% beforehand, is the risk amount 99% of what you intended to risk or if you lose do you owe the 1% if your account is empty and they take it out afterwards, its a pretty fukin confusin system and ppl are tryin to get comfortable with it so stfu with the insults jackass

[GoodOldTed]

ffs it's not that confusing and they are trying something different to encourage more action on their site (by way of offers being placed on the site). Exchanges are confusing for 97% of players anyway..

[u21c3f6]

In no way was I trying to insult anyone, just some light humor. If that offended anyone, I apologize. However, the fact remains that I think some are trying to overcomplicate this and using odd dollar amounts I feel adds to the problem. Below is directly from Matchbook:

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.

It seems clear to me that Matchbook does not adjust your wager, it is a commission that is charged or paid after your wager. But today will tell. I made a few small wagers just to see what would happen. I accepted some offers and my wager was not changed at all. I assume I will see the commission deducted after the game is graded. I also had an offer accepted, again no change to the wager and I expect I will see my commission payment after the game is graded. What I did notice is that the software is not correctly calculating my "risk". The free funds is only subtracting the actual wagers and not taking into account the commission I will have to pay. Of course this only becomes a problem if you want to accept a wager and go "all in".

A couple of other thoughts. There is no mention of pushes. Under this system, it could be argued that you still pay or be paid the commission because the commission is based on the amount bet not the outcome! In addition, dependent upon which wager hits the books first, what you thought was an offer on your part may in fact become an accepted wager on your part.

Let's play nice. We are all trying to learn and figure this out.

Joe.

[Santo]

I was told that the funds for fees should be withheld from your balance (not your bet) as soon as you wager.

[Ganchrow]

Dazzez is completely correct in substance of his comments even if a bit reckless in demeanor.

The actual timing of the commission charge (before or after the wager outcome is realized) is of absolutely no relevance.

It does matter if they take out the buck beforehand bc what if u go all in, does it say not enough funds since they cant take out the 1% beforehand, is the risk amount 99% of what you intended to risk or if you lose do you owe the 1% if your account is empty and they take it out afterwards,

I'm quite certain that Matchbook isn't looking to extend credit to customers by allowing them to go "all-in" as a means of circumventing its commission structure.

One should note, however, that this end-around would only be effective should the player then subsequently lay down on his debt.

Where I think many people are getting confused is with the terminology.

For example if a player risks $1,000 on Matchbook (accepting) at -1000 does that mean he's actually risking $1,011.11 to win $100? Or does it mean that he's risking $1,000 to win $98.90?

Well guess what? We're talking 6 of one and half a dozen of the other. Both bets are at odds of -1011.11. Same prices, just different accounting procedures.

Same issue with long odds. If a player risks $1,000 on Matchbook (accepting) at +1000 does that mean he's actually risking $100 to win $989.11? Or does it mean that he's risking $101.10 to win $100? Same +989.11 price on both, just differing at-risk/to-win.

So again ... the issue is strictly one of terminology. Once the player makes sure he's risking the desired amount (or, if he prefers, betting to win the desired amount), then however he chooses cuts the cake the end results (price-wise) will be exactly the same.

[Doug]

So how would you guys say this new system is working, now ?

[diogee]

So how would you guys say this new system is working, now ?

No I don't think it has changed over yet.

Matchbook will switch to our new commission scheme after Monday's games (midnight Tuesday, Mar 17). All pre-existing markets will remain on the old system until expiry.

[DeluxeLiner]

No I don't think it has changed over yet.

Matchbook will switch to our new commission scheme after Monday's games (midnight Tuesday, Mar 17). All pre-existing markets will remain on the old system until expiry.

NBA games for today opened on Tuesday, so a lot of the action is switched over now...I think the hockey games were open yesterday so ehh...I guess hockey is old system (I would prefer new system, had a bet matched, so we will see if I have some change in my commission credits tonight)

[diogee]

NBA games for today opened on Tuesday, so a lot of the action is switched over now...I think the hockey games were open yesterday so ehh...I guess hockey is old system (I would prefer new system, had a bet matched, so we will see if I have some change in my commission credits tonight)

Yeah you are correct...forgot that they didn't have anything up early for nba. I like the sounds of the new system a bit more.

[BouncedCheck]

So listen, BC, the only reason I'm giving you such a hard time is because you're speaking down to others, telling them that they're "dumbasses", when in reality what you need to do is read the words of your clear intellectual superiors a little more carefully.

There's no room left for debate on this.

Why not try to spend a little more effort trying to figure out the error in your reasoning and a little less time talking down to others.

Fine, maybe I'm an asshole. But that doesn't alter the fact that on this one issue I'm still right and you're still wrong.

Don't do me any favors. If you read the entire thread, you'll see that I started out trying to analyze this in a respectful way, and people attacked me for it. Maybe if you would read my posts and actually make an effort to understand them, you'd realize you're wrong, and you'd stop embarrassing yourself.

If you're going to call every person here "idiots," then you have absolutely no ****ing right to come in here and criticize me for "speaking down to others." Get a ****ing life, dickhead.

In no way was I trying to insult anyone, just some light humor. If that offended anyone, I apologize.
...........................

Let's play nice. We are all trying to learn and figure this out.

Joe.

Hey Joe, I apologize too... to you, not to Uncle Chris or Dazzez. They're both being dicks so I will continue to respond in kind as long as they go out of their way to behave like vulgar children. I'm simply trying to help everyone, including myself, analyze the new system. Once we know whether the commission is taken out before or after the bet is graded, it will be much simpler to figure it out, because like it or not, it does actually matter.

Dazzez is completely correct in substance of his comments even if a bit reckless in demeanor.

The actual timing of the commission charge (before or after the wager outcome is realized) is of absolutely no relevance.

Ganch, all due respect, but it matters.

I'll go back to my -300 example. When I enter -300 and 1% into your calculator, it gives me a net price of -304.04. This is correct if the commission is taken out before grading, as follows:

$300 wagered to win $100.

The smaller amount is $100, so they take 1% of $100, or $1.00.

Your "bet" is now $299.00 but your "actual risk" is still $300.

If you win, your return payout will be the sum of your "bet" plus your "calculated winnings."

Your "bet" is $299.00 because they took commission out before grading.

Your "calculated winnings" are (1/3)*$299.00 = $99.67.

Therefore, your return payout will be $299.00 + $99.67 = $398.67.

Your "actual risk" was $300.00.

Since your return payout is $398.67 and your actual risk is $300, it's easy to subtract to find your "actual winnings" of $98.67, which is less than your "calculated winnings" by $1.00.

$300.00 ÷ $98.67 = -304.0438 Net Price

Thus, your calculator was 100% correct.

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

However, let's do the opposite way - if the commission is removed after grading your win. Please excuse the vulgarity I'm about to use, and be assured it is directed at only one, and exactly one individual, and that individual is not Ganchrow.

Risk $300 to win $100 before comission. Commission taken out after bet graded. Winning bet wins you $100 - $1 comm = $99. Losing bet costs you $300 + $1 = $301. That's a $301 risk to win $99. That's odds of -304.04.

Hey **** face, you're not risking $301 to win $99. You're risking $301 to win $98.

Bet = $300
Win = $100
1% Commission = $1.
Payout = $399
Risk = $301
Win = Payout minus Risk = $399 - $301 = $98

301 ÷ 98 = -307.143 Net Price

PWNED!

[u21c3f6]

Bet = $300
Win = $100
1% Commission = $1.
Payout = $399
Risk = $301
Win = Payout minus Risk = $399 - $301 = $98

301 ÷ 98 = -307.143 Net Price

PWNED!

Incorrect. You are risking $301 if you lose (300 bet + 1 commission). However, if you win you are paid $100 less $1 for commission for a net win of $99.

In your example you are taking the commission out twice.

Joe.

[diogee]

lmao...this may be the most heated thread ever posted in the Industry forum.

[BouncedCheck]

Incorrect. You are risking $301 if you lose (300 bet + 1 commission). However, if you win you are paid $100 less $1 for commission for a net win of $99.

In your example you are taking the commission out twice.

Joe.

Joe, it LOOKS like I'm taking the commission out twice, but I'm really not.

If you lose, they take $1 commission so you lost your bet of $300 plus $1 = $301.

If you win, they pay you the original bet of $300 plus winnings of $100 minus $1 = $399.

I don't know how to make it any easier or more straightforward. You're risking $301 for a potential payout of $399 if you win. It doesn't get simpler than that.

It only looks like I'm taking out the commission twice because I have to account for a loss or a win. It only gets applied once though.

[u21c3f6]

Joe, it LOOKS like I'm taking the commission out twice, but I'm really not.

If you lose, they take $1 commission so you lost your bet of $300 plus $1 = $301.

If you win, they pay you the original bet of $300 plus winnings of $100 minus $1 = $399.

I don't know how to make it any easier or more straightforward. You're risking $301 for a potential payout of $399 if you win. It doesn't get simpler than that.

It only looks like I'm taking out the commission twice because I have to account for a loss or a win. It only gets applied once though.

What you just wrote above is correct. Your previous posts indicated that you were risking $301 to win only $98.

Joe.

[Ganchrow]

if the commission is removed after grading your win

...

you're not risking $301 to win $99. You're risking $301 to win $98.

Let's go through this point-by-point.

Bet = $300
Win = $100
1% Commission = $1

With you so far.

Payout = $399

Still no problems. You receive your initial $300 wager + your $100 win - your $1 commission payment = $300 + $100 - $1 = $399.

Risk = $301

All good. Your total risk amount is your $300 bet + your $1 commission = $301.

Win = Payout minus Risk = $399 - $301 = $98

OK, here's where it gets shaky. In this case win amount does not equal payout minus "risk" as we've defined it above. Remember ... we've already assumed (ultimately arbitrarily as I'm arguing) that commission is calculated after the bet has been decided. win = payout - amount already tendered (i.e., $300). Hence, win = payout - bet = $399 - $300 = $99.

If I bet you $100 at +100 on a coinflip but ask for a $50 deposit upfront and float you the other $50 on credit (paying out $150 if the bet wins and collecting $50 more if the bet loses), then what would be your net win amount?

Would it be $150 in payout - $100 in total risk = $50? No, it would obviously be $150 payout - the $50 already tendered = $100.

Net Price = -100 * 301 99 ≈ -304.04

Let's go through this step-by-step one last time:

1. You have $1,000 in your account.
2. You risk $300 to win $100 with an additional 1% commission of lesser of risk/win taken out after the bet has been decided.
3. At this point (prior to the bet being decided) your bankroll stands at $1,000 - $300 = $700.
4. Ignoring pushes, two scenarios may now occur:
   1. What happens if your bet wins?
      • You'd have your initial $300 bet returned.
      • You'd receive $100 in winnings
      • You'd be charged $1 in commission.
      • This would put your account at $700 + $300 + $100 - $1 = $1,099.
   2. What happens if your bet loses?
      • Your initial $300 bet would not be returned.
      • You'd further be charged $1 in commission.
      • This would put your account at $700 - $1 = $699.
5. So where does that leave us under each of the above 2 scenarios?
   1. In the event of a win your account would stand at $1,099 corresponding to a net win of $1,099 - $1,000 = $99.
   2. In the event of a loss your account would stand at $699 corresponding to a net loss of $1000 - $699 = $301.
6. Hence you'd be risking $301 to win $99, corresponding to US payout odds of ~-304.04.

Make sense?

[BouncedCheck]

What you just wrote above is correct. Your previous posts indicated that you were risking $301 to win only $98.

Joe.

LOL, come on Joe, I'm trying really hard here!

If you're risking $301 for a total potential payout of $399, you only win $98!

[Ganchrow]

If you're risking $301 for a total potential payout of $399, you only win $98!

You bet $100 on credit at +100, meaning you're risking $100 to win $100.

You win the bet.

What's your net win?

Would it be $100 won - $100 risked = $0?

No it'd be $100 won - $0 already put up = $100.

[u21c3f6]

LOL, come on Joe, I'm trying really hard here!

If you're risking $301 for a total potential payout of $399, you only win $98!

You may be risking $301 but you don't pay $301 if you win. If you win you receive $100 - $1 for commission for a net win of $99.

Maybe Ganchrow's post (the one above yours) may clear it up for you.

Joe.