Why has everything been so bad with betting exchanges in recent years? Why didn’t anyone create a worthy alternative to Betfair while it does everything to scare customers away from its exchange?
It would seem that the owners of betting exchanges are in a privileged position compared to classic bookmakers: you do not risk anything, but simply cut your commission with the winnings of customers who make and accept bets from each other. A win-win option ... excluding operating expenses.
But, as it turns out, the proceeds from this commission do not even cover them. The British bookmaker Smarkets reported annual losses of 10 million euros against a profit of € 7.7 million a year earlier: despite a 46% increase in turnover (the sum of players on the exchange) over the same period, the company's revenue fell by 42%, and proceeds from the commission - by 20%.
Strange as it may seem, the reason for such a paradoxical result is called, namely, increased popularity, which is why the spread - the difference between the odds for “back” and “back” (lay) in the same market — has decreased to the minimum size, thereby reducing the "base" from which the commission is taken. That is, the growth of the customer base of the exchange exchange rates leads to a decrease in its income! It turns out just a disadvantageous business per se.
Because of this, Smarket is now forced to introduce a commission from ... lost bets of 3%, so far only for those players who have won clean over 25 thousand pounds for the previous 12 months. Surely for the same reasons, Betfair is trying to limit the “population” of customers on its betting exchange.
It would seem that the owners of betting exchanges are in a privileged position compared to classic bookmakers: you do not risk anything, but simply cut your commission with the winnings of customers who make and accept bets from each other. A win-win option ... excluding operating expenses.
But, as it turns out, the proceeds from this commission do not even cover them. The British bookmaker Smarkets reported annual losses of 10 million euros against a profit of € 7.7 million a year earlier: despite a 46% increase in turnover (the sum of players on the exchange) over the same period, the company's revenue fell by 42%, and proceeds from the commission - by 20%.
Strange as it may seem, the reason for such a paradoxical result is called, namely, increased popularity, which is why the spread - the difference between the odds for “back” and “back” (lay) in the same market — has decreased to the minimum size, thereby reducing the "base" from which the commission is taken. That is, the growth of the customer base of the exchange exchange rates leads to a decrease in its income! It turns out just a disadvantageous business per se.
Because of this, Smarket is now forced to introduce a commission from ... lost bets of 3%, so far only for those players who have won clean over 25 thousand pounds for the previous 12 months. Surely for the same reasons, Betfair is trying to limit the “population” of customers on its betting exchange.
