[Mark Shark]

Does anyone have any idea what the commission structure will be for Matchbook on MLB? At first they said they will tell us by the end of March. Now they have delayed it till the start of the season. I wonder what is going on there.

[heyman]

I was hoping to find out at the end of March as well. They've been very upfront with their changes so far so I have no reason to doubt the "as good or better than last years 1% net-win". I guess we'll find out before the Phils go up saturday night.

[Kindred]

isn't every sport better than 1% net win now, like accepting an offer 1% of bet or win whichever is lower and you get paid for offers

[coldhardfacts]

isn't every sport better than 1% net win now, like accepting an offer 1% of bet or win whichever is lower and you get paid for offers

Not really, since now you're charged 1% of your bet whether you win or you lose on accepted offers. But it's definitely better than it was. Especially for baseball, where you're often taking significant odds.

And they've stated that for baseball they're going to do even better than the 1%. We'll see.

[heyman]

Baseball rates for 2009 will be as follows: Monyelines and Runlines: 0.6% accept side; -0.1% offer side (rebate). Totals: 0.8% accept side; -0.2% offer side (rebate). Rates will be reviewed at the end of April to ensure they are promoting liquidity for each market type.

Not a huge fan. Looks like Gaunch's calculator needs updating.

Edit: wonder why they didn't just do them both .6/-.1 or if they wanted more offers both at .7/-.2.

[Santo]

For your regular player, isn't that worse than last year? (Substantially worse on totals)..

[heyman]

Just had a couple minutes to really look at this and i was probably too negative in my post above. So, with today's PHI game's +122/-124 its a 3.1c line with the new odds and a 4.7c line even if you calculate both sides as accepting. With 8.5o +101/-103, the total is a 4.2/3.2c line (depending which is the offer/accepted) and a 5.2c line if both are accepting. Also, there's 15k available on the sides and 18k more at just slightly worse odds. Considering game time is over 5 hours away when the lines will be tighter and there will be more liquidity where else can you get close to this?

For your regular player, isn't that worse than last year? (Substantially worse on totals)..

If most of your plays are accepted on pick'ems, sure.

[Halifax]

For your regular player, isn't that worse than last year? (Substantially worse on totals)..

Yes

[heyman]

Yes

please explain.

Using the lesser of the risk/win amount is a significant advantage.

[Chuck Sims]

How can it be worse? Matchbook is paying you a commission on your offers that are accepted!!!!!!!!

[Santo]

Because by definition at least half (probably more given a lot of action is against the market maker) won't be making offers that get accepted, and for them, it's worse than last year.

[Casi]

Everyone but scalpers (and even they can try it if MB is the 2nd leg) will usually get their offers matched on major sports, if the odds are reasonable. It IS better forthe majority, iam not sure what all the fuss is about.

[Santo]

By definition on each trade, there is 1 acceptor and 1 offering. From watching the markets, it's clear a lot of action takes place vs the MM at available price. Thus I would disagree that the majority are getting better than last year. Scalpers don't come into this; they advertised that MLB would be as good or better than last year, which it clearly is not.

[Mark Shark]

More Lies from Matchbook. The odds are clearly not better than last year like they claimed they would.

[Halifax]

please explain.

Using the lesser of the risk/win amount is a significant advantage.

For the average bettor who goes on Matchbook, sees a line he likes, and makes a bet, it's worse than it was last year for many baseball bets (totals in particular).

Let's compare, using a baseball total of Under 9 +100 (to make things easy):

Last year, if you risked $100 on Under 9 +100, you were risking $100 to win a net of $99 ($100 win minus the $1 commission) ... so risking $100 to win $99 was effectively a bet at -101.0 odds.

This year, you're paying 0.8% commission (win or lose) on totals, so let's place the same $100 bet on that same Under 9 +100. If the bet loses, you're out of pocket $100.80 (the $100 bet plus the $0.80 commission). If the bet wins, your net win is going to be $99.20
(the $100 win amount minus the $0.80 commission). So in reality, you're risking $100.80 to win a net amount of $99.20 ... which is effectively a bet at odds of about -101.6.

So last year, on a totals bet of Under 9 +100, you could bet at an effective line of -101.0 ... this year, that same bet has an effective line of about -101.6.

[WileOut]

Still they continue to offer better odds than any book out there. I will continue playing 90%+ of my plays there and its not because I like the website colors

Guys remember the 1% baseball thing was a DISCOUNT from the previous years. They were doing you a favor. They are going to discount baseball again from the current commission structure. It may not be as good as last year, but so what it is still a discount and even if they offered no discount at all off of their current structure for baseball I would play there because the odds would still be better there.

Thank you matchbook.

[Mark Shark]

They are doing us a FAVOR.
No book does anyone but themselves a favor.

[Igetp2s]

As I said in the other Matchbook thread, I think 0% and .5% would be a much better way to go than -.01% and .6%.

It would be a lot simpler for everybody.

But as it is, the difference in commissions for sides and run lines between this year and last year is negligible. And thats for the acceptors.

+100 last year = -101.0101
+100 this year = -101.2072

Not a huge difference, and it get's slightly better the farther away from +100. obviously for offers it is much, much better than last year. So I'm not really sure what all the whining is about.

The only complaints should really be about totals. Not sure why they separated them out for worse commissions.

[Casi]

They are doing us a FAVOR.
No book does anyone but themselves a favor.

Yes MB did everyone a favor on MLB.
And they do it again now, i absolutely love the new system.

Maybe because iam not too lazy to make an offer and wait a bit until it is accepted, or maybe coz iam not a fraidy cat who fears the line moves against me meanwhile at Pinny?

MB is no "book". So itīs not impossible for them do be generous on certain things, what do you think about free Neteller withdrawals up to 10k each day?

And ...whatīs whith the "market maker" thing?
There are a few guys who copy Pinny odds and put up some $$$ on both sides of a game. So what? Itīs not like they wouldnīt leave some space for you to make your own offer...

[tomcowley]

Putting up an offer without a bot to take it down is flushing money. The advantage of getting accepted is .7% -1.2%. The drawback of getting crushed on a line move is.. a lot bigger.

[Casi]

The drawback of getting crushed on a line move is.. a lot bigger.

Not higher as if you would take the bet before the line move, and bite yourself in the ass afterwards. I donīt know what you guys are expecting, but MB is as good as it gets.

[Santo]

I don't think anybody is disputing that; some just thought it was better under the old system.

[heyman]

For the average bettor who goes on Matchbook, sees a line he likes, and makes a bet, it's worse than it was last year for many baseball bets (totals in particular).

Let's compare, using a baseball total of Under 9 +100 (to make things easy):

Last year, if you risked $100 on Under 9 +100, you were risking $100 to win a net of $99 ($100 win minus the $1 commission) ... so risking $100 to win $99 was effectively a bet at -101.0 odds.

This year, you're paying 0.8% commission (win or lose) on totals, so let's place the same $100 bet on that same Under 9 +100. If the bet loses, you're out of pocket $100.80 (the $100 bet plus the $0.80 commission). If the bet wins, your net win is going to be $99.20
(the $100 win amount minus the $0.80 commission). So in reality, you're risking $100.80 to win a net amount of $99.20 ... which is effectively a bet at odds of about -101.6.

So last year, on a totals bet of Under 9 +100, you could bet at an effective line of -101.0 ... this year, that same bet has an effective line of about -101.6.

Yes, well ok that's the most extreme case you can make. Even so, if you bet $900 more in your example w/ $300 offered and $600 accepting it will be the same as last year' odds. At the worse (+100 totals), you need approximately 30% of the bets to be offers to break even with last years pricing.

[heyman]

More Lies from Matchbook. The odds are clearly not better than last year like they claimed they would.

Its not clear at all. And they never claimed that.

[Casi]

I don't think anybody is disputing that; some just thought it was better under the old system.

Some of the guys here make it sound like they are cheating or something, sad.

[heyman]

As I said in the other Matchbook thread, I think 0% and .5% would be a much better way to go than -.01% and .6%.

It would be a lot simpler for everybody.

But as it is, the difference in commissions for sides and run lines between this year and last year is negligible. And thats for the acceptors.

+100 last year = -101.0101
+100 this year = -101.2072

Not a huge difference, and it get's slightly better the farther away from +100. obviously for offers it is much, much better than last year. So I'm not really sure what all the whining is about.

The only complaints should really be about totals. Not sure why they separated them out for worse commissions.

Good post by the way.