MATCHBOOK says goodbye to 2% commission...

[Mark Shark]

And just when we thought Matchbook was smarter starting their NBA games at the correct start time they go and move it back today to the Official start time. How stupid, they lose 10 to 15 mins more betting time. Sounds to me like they just don't want to make money.

[acw]

Good to see there are some more posters in favour of the new rules too!

I told them already 3.5 years ago:

http://www.therxforum.com/showthread.php?t=321333

[Dark Horse]

I think they were doing fine. Not a whole lot of overhead for an exchange. No need to watch the lines; no exposure to risk. Nothing of all the worries of a book. No clerks taking bets, no nothing. They only had to post some lines, sharp or not, and sit back. They would even post additional lines, if someone requested them... Guaranteed profit every time. (I would guess that you could probably run an operation like that with two or three hard working people). I think they looked at all the volume, compared it to what they were taking out, and got greedy.

It's ironic that SBR has just now taken the votes from posters for best sportsbooks. That would put Matchbook at or near the top again, for the next six months, even though they are a completely different outfit now.

[bleedblue]

So I live-bet on the USA-Japan baseball game even though the liquidity was pretty pathetic, just to see how the commission would work out...

I made 8 total bets; 6 matched, 2 offered. I was charged commission on the 6 matches, but was only given credit for 1 of my offers. Not really worth getting matchy to fix it since it would be 10 cents, but this was the kind of thing I was worried they'd screw up. I'm a little worried that there will be many more mistakes like this in the future, and that I'll be getting charged .5% commission when I should be getting a .2% credit. It'll be impossible to keep track of what were offers and what were matches, so it would be nice to know that matchbook is getting it right.

Santo, I remember you mentioned being charged for a match, when you were positive it was an offer. Have you had any more problems with that?

Has anyone else been charged the wrong commission on matches/offers?

Anyway, I hope this gets fixed because I don't want to have to worry about getting charged the wrong commission when I'm making much larger bets...

[bettilimbroke999]

The new rules are absolutely terrible for live betting, the commissions are impossible to determine until after the bet is settled and the commissions get ridiculous when you lose or dont win much

[Dark Horse]

So I live-bet on the USA-Japan baseball game even though the liquidity was pretty pathetic, just to see how the commission would work out...

I made 8 total bets; 6 matched, 2 offered. I was charged commission on the 6 matches, but was only given credit for 1 of my offers. Not really worth getting matchy to fix it since it would be 10 cents, but this was the kind of thing I was worried they'd screw up. I'm a little worried that there will be many more mistakes like this in the future, and that I'll be getting charged .5% commission when I should be getting a .2% credit. It'll be impossible to keep track of what were offers and what were matches, so it would be nice to know that matchbook is getting it right.

Santo, I remember you mentioned being charged for a match, when you were positive it was an offer. Have you had any more problems with that?

Has anyone else been charged the wrong commission on matches/offers?

Anyway, I hope this gets fixed because I don't want to have to worry about getting charged the wrong commission when I'm making much larger bets...

I just cringe at this type of stuff. Announce a change and then be caught off guard by their own announcement. Sad to see MB shoot themselves in the foot like this.

[Santo]

bleedblue: No more problems because I withdrew (unrelated, just wasn't profitable there for me any more) -- but as I said their logs differed from my notes, so it's possible I made a mistake between markets.

Your not getting credit sounds an awful lot like me/mudcat not being charged commission on markets last week, maybe they only fixed it one-way so it's worth emailing them to check.

[WileOut]

I havent been able to play at matchbook since they changed the commission structure. Have the live games changed any in liquidity as a result?

Just a year ago the live games were great. Then they couldn't accept ** or ** and the liquidity fell through the floor. Any change?

[bookie]

Has MB ever explained why they have fewer deposit options than other books?

[BouncedCheck]

I was thinking a little more about Mark Shark's complaints, and I'm starting to think MB really did themselves a disservice. As it was before, they took 2% on winnings. Sometimes the win amount was smaller than the risk, but sometimes it was larger than the risk. That wasn't a factor in the old system. They simply took 2% of winnings, period.

Now, they're not only taking 0.8% instead of 2% but they're also taking 0.8% of the SMALLER AMOUNT on every bet. So they're reducing their commission even further.

The problem with the old system was that scalpers were only getting charged 2% on their net win, not 2% on each individual bet that won.

The answer, very simply, would have been for them to reduce their commission from 2% to 1.5% or 1% and calculate it on the win of each individual bet, not on a player's net win for all bets made on the same event. This would have hurt scalpers, but not nearly as much as the actual new system hurts scalpers. It would also help MB keep profits up, and it would have prevented all the confusion in the days leading up to the switch. It also would have created a system in which MB wouldn't care if people are scalping.

[Mark Shark]

Not a bad idea Bounced Check but could still be a confusing albeit less confusing system than the new structure. I don't mind sharing my winnings with Matchbook by paying 15 to 20% commission on my net winnings but find it hard to stomach that when I lose from a bet I have to still pay extra commission on my loss. I and others like me are helping the book with liquidity and tight lines but theirnew structure is making us walk away from what was once a terrific book.

[ArunSh]

I must say I'm quite disappointed with this system so far, liquidity seems to have gone down not up from what I've seen so far, which is the direct opposite of what they were intending. I suppose scalpers were a big part of their liquidity and now that it's so much harder for them that seems to be having a worse effect on liquidity than the slightly better commission.

[Dark Horse]

I suppose scalpers were a big part of their liquidity and now that it's so much harder for them that seems to be having a worse effect on liquidity than the slightly better commission.

That's because a part of the 'scalpers' were also market makers. Matchbook stands or falls with market makers, unless they want to make their own markets. I don't know why they drew an imaginary line between market makers and scalpers, because both are in the game for the exact same reason. As such, market makers will scalp, and scalpers will make markets. And it is, in my opinion, absurd to charge them for doing so.

I can certainly be wrong about this, but that's what it looks like to me at this point.

====================

[BouncedCheck]

I think the main problem with this new system is that NOBODY wants to accept a bet. Even if I only want to bet a few dollars, why should I accept a posted offer several hours before the start of an event? Instead, I can tweek the odds just slightly in my favor, so I'll get better odds AND avoid paying commission once my bet is accepted. The problem for the market makers is that by helping myself, I'm also helping my opponent. We BOTH undercut the market maker. Unless the lines are within a digit or two of each other, or the event is about to disappear off the board, I can usually undercut the market maker who has posted all the liquidity. Ex. Marquette vs. Missouri the other day was +144, -145 so I had no choice but to accept the posted offer. However, there was another event that was +111, -123 and I wanted to bet on the favorite. I put in an offer at -115 which got me better odds AND undercut the market maker by topping his +111 with my +115, even though it was only a tiny amount compared to his liquidity, it was easy to get my offer accepted and matched in a short amount of time because I was offering the best odds available on the underdog.

MB tried to help the market makers by rewarding them with reverse commission, but they drastically underestimated the desire of the average square bettor to get in on the party and make his own offers. In essence, the squares have eliminated the "middle man" market makers and they've started betting against each other. This is why the lines seem to be tighter, but liquidity is down. MB probably figured that their posted offers, even without extremely tight lines and factoring in commission, would be significantly better than other books, which is still true. But even the dumb bettors realize they can do even better still under this new system by making their own offers most of the time, and that kills liquidity, because the market makers' offers get pushed off to the right, and the "best odds" offers in the blue box to the left are usually for very small amounts.

Dark Horse, one difference that should be pointed out between the true market makers and the scalpers is that when the market makers put up offers with high liquidity on both sides, they take a risk of not having all their money matched on one side or the other. Scalpers who generally only accept offers by picking off bad lines when they know they're going to be able to bet an equal amount at better odds on the other side aren't really taking any risk. In fact, they reduce the overall liquidity by tying up the liquidity provided by the market makers in a way that, under the old system, hurt MB because nobody was paying any real commission on those bets, and that's probably why MB tried to screw over the scalpers with the new system.

In essence, the market makers are taking the risk the same way a traditional book takes a risk that they might get one-sided action. This can be countered to some degree by good handicapping, but sometimes the betting patterns of the masses are as unpredictable as the events themselves. MB tried to protect the market makers a little, but I think they've probably made it worse by motivating the squares to not accept any offers whenever it's avoidable.

Bottom line is this system isn't going to work as currently implemented, because the market makers, just like scalpers, need a wide differential between the two sides of an event to make any serious profit by betting both sides. +144, -145 ain't gonna cut it unless the market makers are guaranteed perfectly balanced action, and as predicted, the current system creates tighter lines, which make it MORE DIFFICULT for the market makers to turn a profit. Unfortunately for MB, it's really difficult to hurt the scalpers without hurting the market makers too. It's not good for them to accept offers now because of the commission structure, and when they make offers, their risk of one-sided action is now increased because nobody wants to accept any offers. I think the market makers are probably under intense pressure in deciding if and when they should give in and tighten their lines to match what's being offered by people with far less liquidity.

What MB has to do is going to propel them even further away from the recreational players, and that is to keep this new system in place, but only allow offers when a minimum amount of liquidity is met. If you want to put up say $100 or $200 or $500 minimum, you can make an offer. Anything less than whatever arbitrary amount is chosen by MB, and you have to accept a bet at the offered odds. That might be the only way this system works for MB. Still sucks for the scalpers, but goes a long way in protecting the market makers from some dumb schmo who ends up tightening a line with a $1 bet.

If, however, they begin accepting **/** deposits and covering the deposit fees in the form of commission credits and offering one free withdrawal per month, they can get the recreational betters back that way. They're still going to beat the crap out of every other book when it comes to having the best odds in the market, so they'll still be a "must have" for most gamblers, even the ones who don't bet large amounts and have to pay commission on accepted offers.

Another minor tweek they should probably make is to deduct the commission immediately from an acceptor's available balance. Also, the commission should be listed in a third box (in addition to risk and to win amounts) during the confirmation stage so those users who don't quite fully grasp the new commission system will have less difficultly understanding it.

[Dark Horse]

Dark Horse, one difference that should be pointed out between the true market makers and the scalpers is that when the market makers put up offers with high liquidity on both sides, they take a risk of not having all their money matched on one side or the other. Scalpers who generally only accept offers by picking off bad lines when they know they're going to be able to bet an equal amount at better odds on the other side aren't really taking any risk. In fact, they reduce the overall liquidity by tying up the liquidity provided by the market makers in a way that, under the old system, hurt MB because nobody was paying any real commission on those bets, and that's probably why MB tried to screw over the scalpers with the new system.

Not necessarily. If I put up an offer at -104 (+104 to me), for the only reason to get out of it later at -104 (another +104 to me), well before the game starts, am I a market maker or a scalper? Or am I both?

I could still do the above under the new rules, but not nearly as aggressively. Because I would have to wait every time for my offer to get matched; who has time for that?! Multiply this problem by however many people were doing this and you can see the gridlock that MB has created.

Whether or not risk is involved has absolutely nothing to do with it. If players can find ways to get paid while minimizing or avoiding risk, good for them.

MB wasn't 'hurt' by anybody under the previous system. They took in 2% on all profit. Pretty sweet deal, if you ask me. But not comparable, of course, to 1% on all volume. They were appreciated because their platform allowed for that volume, while they only charged for profit. By charching on volume instead, they will probably find that it will go down; regardless of their wild statement to the contrary.

[hhsilver]

.....
Multiply this problem by however many people were doing this and you can see the gridlock that MB has created.
.....

GRIDLOCK --- perfect word for what seems to be happening. Let me add "watching paint dry" .

[coldhardfacts]

I don't understand what everyone's talking about. The lines on practically every game are much tighter - usually no more than 2 or 3 points difference on either side. And as a BETTOR who sets limits on how much he's willing to lay on favorites of take on dogs on particular games, I find that I'm able to get the best lines by accepting offers without having to make them. And, I'm only charged $1 for every $100 I bet regardless of the price. Before, if I took $115 to $100, I'd have to pay back $2.30. Now, I only have to pay back $1.14 (with the 1% factored in if I lose). I could care less if I'm paying the juice to offerors or to Matchbook.

I say, BRAVO Matchbook, and thanks for improving my bottom line!

[guy9bundes]

I as a semi-professional bettor love the change.
I pay now 5% commissions from what I used to.

I see an increase in the liquidity on NBA markets but not significant one maybe 10% better. Time will tell if this change will improve liquidity.

Lines are tighter now and I really cant understand what is the big issue from an accept a bet to offer one, the difference is only 1.2$ for every 100$ turnover so it is really no issue for me (especially if the other option is to pay 10% commissions in 99% of the other books). the important thing for me is to get a good line and the best line are offerd in matchbook.

I agree that this change is killing the scalpers but matchbook is also saying it in the front page.

Bottom line that now 95 % of my turnover is in matchbook , compare to 60-70% before.

[bookie]

MB wasn't 'hurt' by anybody under the previous system. They took in 2% on all profit. Pretty sweet deal, if you ask me. But not comparable, of course, to 1% on all volume.

Eight-tenths of a percent on all volume.

I expected some gridlock for the first few months of the transition, but whatever its faults it's the best game in town and as the client base adjusts itself and individuals form new plans to take better advantage of -102 it can still work. It's going to take at least through the end of football season, though, for Matchbox to know how the market will respond to their play for volume.

I also keep hearing rumors that a new payment transfer system is a year or less away that will simplify things for US-based customers. If it is, I would think that would help MB more than any other book.

[Igetp2s]

I like the new system so far. Contrary to what some people have said, I haven't had too much trouble getting offers accepted, usually closer to game time.

I think that Matchbook should tweak the commission structure just a bit. Instead of 1.2% spread (-0.2% vs 1%), they should reduce the difference slightly. I would say 0% vs .8%. The .2% they currently give for you making offers is virtually meaningless compared to 0%. $2 for $1,000 someone else accepts is peanuts.

By narrowing the spread, they still give people incentive to put up offers (no commission), but not as much disincentive to accept other people's offers.

[Doug]

I think the main problem with this new system is that NOBODY wants to accept a bet. Even if I only want to bet a few dollars, why should I accept a posted offer several hours before the start of an event? Instead, I can tweek the odds just slightly in my favor, so I'll get better odds AND avoid paying commission once my bet is accepted. The problem for the market makers is that by helping myself, I'm also helping my opponent. We BOTH undercut the market maker. Unless the lines are within a digit or two of each other, or the event is about to disappear off the board, I can usually undercut the market maker who has posted all the liquidity. Ex. Marquette vs. Missouri the other day was +144, -145 so I had no choice but to accept the posted offer. However, there was another event that was +111, -123 and I wanted to bet on the favorite. I put in an offer at -115 which got me better odds AND undercut the market maker by topping his +111 with my +115, even though it was only a tiny amount compared to his liquidity, it was easy to get my offer accepted and matched in a short amount of time because I was offering the best odds available on the underdog.

MB tried to help the market makers by rewarding them with reverse commission, but they drastically underestimated the desire of the average square bettor to get in on the party and make his own offers. In essence, the squares have eliminated the "middle man" market makers and they've started betting against each other. This is why the lines seem to be tighter, but liquidity is down. MB probably figured that their posted offers, even without extremely tight lines and factoring in commission, would be significantly better than other books, which is still true. But even the dumb bettors realize they can do even better still under this new system by making their own offers most of the time, and that kills liquidity, because the market makers' offers get pushed off to the right, and the "best odds" offers in the blue box to the left are usually for very small amounts.

Dark Horse, one difference that should be pointed out between the true market makers and the scalpers is that when the market makers put up offers with high liquidity on both sides, they take a risk of not having all their money matched on one side or the other. Scalpers who generally only accept offers by picking off bad lines when they know they're going to be able to bet an equal amount at better odds on the other side aren't really taking any risk. In fact, they reduce the overall liquidity by tying up the liquidity provided by the market makers in a way that, under the old system, hurt MB because nobody was paying any real commission on those bets, and that's probably why MB tried to screw over the scalpers with the new system.

In essence, the market makers are taking the risk the same way a traditional book takes a risk that they might get one-sided action. This can be countered to some degree by good handicapping, but sometimes the betting patterns of the masses are as unpredictable as the events themselves. MB tried to protect the market makers a little, but I think they've probably made it worse by motivating the squares to not accept any offers whenever it's avoidable.

Bottom line is this system isn't going to work as currently implemented, because the market makers, just like scalpers, need a wide differential between the two sides of an event to make any serious profit by betting both sides. +144, -145 ain't gonna cut it unless the market makers are guaranteed perfectly balanced action, and as predicted, the current system creates tighter lines, which make it MORE DIFFICULT for the market makers to turn a profit. Unfortunately for MB, it's really difficult to hurt the scalpers without hurting the market makers too. It's not good for them to accept offers now because of the commission structure, and when they make offers, their risk of one-sided action is now increased because nobody wants to accept any offers. I think the market makers are probably under intense pressure in deciding if and when they should give in and tighten their lines to match what's being offered by people with far less liquidity.

What MB has to do is going to propel them even further away from the recreational players, and that is to keep this new system in place, but only allow offers when a minimum amount of liquidity is met. If you want to put up say $100 or $200 or $500 minimum, you can make an offer. Anything less than whatever arbitrary amount is chosen by MB, and you have to accept a bet at the offered odds. That might be the only way this system works for MB. Still sucks for the scalpers, but goes a long way in protecting the market makers from some dumb schmo who ends up tightening a line with a $1 bet.

If, however, they begin accepting **/** deposits and covering the deposit fees in the form of commission credits and offering one free withdrawal per month, they can get the recreational betters back that way. They're still going to beat the crap out of every other book when it comes to having the best odds in the market, so they'll still be a "must have" for most gamblers, even the ones who don't bet large amounts and have to pay commission on accepted offers.

Another minor tweek they should probably make is to deduct the commission immediately from an acceptor's available balance. Also, the commission should be listed in a third box (in addition to risk and to win amounts) during the confirmation stage so those users who don't quite fully grasp the new commission system will have less difficultly understanding it.

Great post, BC !

[Mark Shark]

Has anyone seen any money being bet on Matchbook since the last NBA game started 1HR ago. The lines and amounts have not changed at all.

[hhsilver]

I like the new system so far. Contrary to what some people have said, I haven't had too much trouble getting offers accepted, usually closer to game time.

I think that Matchbook should tweak the commission structure just a bit. Instead of 1.2% spread (-0.2% vs 1%), they should reduce the difference slightly. I would say 0% vs .8%. The .2% they currently give for you making offers is virtually meaningless compared to 0%. $2 for $1,000 someone else accepts is peanuts.

By narrowing the spread, they still give people incentive to put up offers (no commission), but not as much disincentive to accept other people's offers.

If we have to live with the change, which I dislike, I like your idea about .8 and 0 . It gives Mb the same 0.8 , but it might make bettors more apt to accept. And the 0 commission would still be an incentive to make offers. As one who makes offers, I'll gladly trade the +0.2 for an increase in the chance my offer will be accepted.

[WileOut]

I just cant believe people are actually complaining about matchbook at all. What if there was no matchbook? Do you want to pay 20 cent lines on everything? Because if you are any good the other low juice books will take that away from you, matchbook is the only place that wont ever kick you out. Unless you keep complaining and run people away.

OMG they are by far the lowest juice shop available people, get a grip and understand how great matchbook is for us.

After this thread I am convinced that some people will just complain about anything and everything. If these people won the 50 million lottery they would complain about the taxes.

Matchbook if you are reading this please understand that for every person that is upset with this move there are 50 that are glad you made it. We are just waiting on an easy way to get our money in there now.

[heyman]

I just cant believe people are actually complaining about matchbook at all. What if there was no matchbook? Do you want to pay 20 cent lines on everything? Because if you are any good the other low juice books will take that away from you, matchbook is the only place that wont ever kick you out. Unless you keep complaining and run people away.

OMG they are by far the lowest juice shop available people, get a grip and understand how great matchbook is for us.

After this thread I am convinced that some people will just complain about anything and everything. If these people won the 50 million lottery they would complain about the taxes.

Matchbook if you are reading this please understand that for every person that is upset with this move there are 50 that are glad you made it. We are just waiting on an easy way to get our money in there now.

New to SBR but not to the game. This post is dead-on. Sure the change helps some and hurts others its been repeated over and over. People just seem to be missing the forest for the trees. A -118/+116 MLB line is still a 3.7c-3.8c line after commission (depending on which side is the accept/offer). A -133/130 line is 4.8c-4.9c. And thats before:

Regular-season baseball on the new commission system will be equal to or better than last season's special 1% net-win rate.

I've read some absolutely great posters but a loud contingent seems to be people unwilling to learn/do anything new. Send a damn wire and learn how to use matchbook. It's still the best option.

[acw]

Most of the time I wasn't making offers but picking off a bad line. Then if I didn't get the odds I wanted on the other side I would make more than generous offers to get out of my position. Most times at 4 to 7 points worse than what I should be getting.

Amazing! It seems as if all what I now may call Matchbook members were betting this way (always closing their positions). No way an exchange with the old commission structure could survive, as they would make extremely little. I think BetFair still has quite some genuine gamblers. Matchbook very few.

[pat venditto]

[Santo]

People are always going to (and probably so entitled to) complain about things that hurt their bottom line.

Bottom line is that Matchbook have made the change. We have to live with the consequences and find other places/ways to bet, and they'll have to live with the consequences of the new amount of volume. Whether they'll like the consequences in the long run or not only time can tell.

[Mark Shark]

Well said Santo. We all have our own interests at heart here. I look forward to seeing how this all pans out for Matchbook. At the moment I am taking a well earned break. We will see what happens in the near future.

[GoodOldTed]

I think they were doing fine. Not a whole lot of overhead for an exchange. No need to watch the lines; no exposure to risk. Nothing of all the worries of a book. No clerks taking bets, no nothing. They only had to post some lines, sharp or not, and sit back. They would even post additional lines, if someone requested them... Guaranteed profit every time. (I would guess that you could probably run an operation like that with two or three hard working people). I think they looked at all the volume, compared it to what they were taking out, and got greedy.

It might look that way from the outside DarkHorse, but I can assure you it is a long way from the truth.

A book can still operate over the phone. If Matchbook have an outage via DDoS attack, local network down, anything, they are out of action completely until it comes back online.

Extra markets do not mean automatic profit. If there is no action, it has cost them time and resources to manage that market for sweet FA return. Unless they actually show how much they are 'holding' on a market, we are all guessing at how much is actually being matched. A static screen doesn't translate to commission being earnt from high volume.

When placing a bet at a sportsbook, the time it takes to put it through isn't crucial unless you are betting steam. 5-15 seconds, not the end of the world. The exchange has to be as quick as possible, particularly for live.

A sportsbook's pages don't need to be refreshing by the second, most pages are static. The exchange has to be live and constantly updating which is considerably more costly on bandwidth and hardware. Not only refreshing the prices. but refreshing the status of your bets and position the game. Simple if you are a one bet player, but many here will trade both sides several times over. All additional drain on the servers.

They might not need the 'expert' risk managers and odds compilers, (but let's face it, how many books out there these days employ cheap labour and regurgitate markets from Vegas/Greek/Pinnacle anyway), but they do need bigger tech resources than any sportsbook.

[Dark Horse]

Fair enough. One type of overhead that, say, a Las Vegas casino wouldn't have.

Probably too simple to think that SBR, through SBR Odds and forum, would have to experience similar (not identical) problems in terms of live updates and drain on servers. But I stand corrected. I shouldn't have implied that two or three people could run such an operation. It would take at least four. (j/k).

I wish Matchbook the best. They have given bettors a great out for the last few years. If liquidity is improved by the recent change, good for them. I certainly hope for their continued success.

[Kaps]

so fukkin hott right know ....

[Kaps]

FUKKKK YOU matchy

[bettilimbroke999]

So is matchy down right now? Doesn't seem like its comin up on my laptop but I got a cheap laptop thats always fukin up

[Kaps]

no, they are up and running ....