Matchbook: bets have been cancelled

[wrongturn]

It must be a new policy since the owner change, because I had taken both "trapped" offers and "great" offers in old Matchbook and none were voided.

[BranchDavidian]

If you were "zinged by a trap offer", shouldn't Matchbook have voided that wager --- since both you and they are claiming that such offers are routinely voided?

[BranchDavidian]

I handled this one. They were within the rules to void that wager. And, I applaud them for doing so. I used to use Matchbook a lot, and I was once zinged by a trap offer. Minimizing trap offers and flagrant mistakes will ultimately increase liquidity.

This is what I meant to quote! It seems to me that Matchbook has terms and conditions that claim no bets will be cancelled for any mistakes ( as quoted in the original post ), and yet in this thread Matchbook is claiming that their terms and conditions allow them, no force them, to cancel any wagers that are off market. Which is it? Whichever one it is, they seem to be applying one rule one time, and the other the next.

[Thremp]

There are a ton of "trap offers" up on markets currently up at Matchbook. I don't understand why they aren't taking these down.

Please help Mike!!!

PS: You can answer my question in the other thread too.

[filipinho]

Question is why is there so many "trap offers" when Matchbook will void them? So, who puts them and why?

[Hareeba!]

Mike, I made a large bet on a rugby match on 5th March at about 20c above the prevailing odds anywhere else.

Could you please arrange for it to be cancelled pursuant to the rule you have quoted?

Mike, several of us are still interested to get your response to clarify Matchbook's true position on this issue.

[Justin7]

Mike, several of us are still interested to get your response to clarify Matchbook's true position on this issue.

I don't think this meets their definition of an obvious mistake. 20c != 20%.

[Hareeba!]

I don't think this meets their definition of an obvious mistake. 20c != 20%.

Ok, maybe, but just what is the criterion for determining what is and isn't voidable. I thought an earlier post had talked of a void that it was somewhat less than that?

[Justin7]

Ok, maybe, but just what is the criterion for determining what is and isn't voidable. I thought an earlier post had talked of a void that it was somewhat less than that?

1. Accepted offer 20% off market
2. Complaint submitted before match starts.

[Hareeba!]

1. Accepted offer 20% off market
2. Complaint submitted before match starts.

Thanks Justin.
But how is the % calculated?
e.g. -139 v -115

[Justin7]

Thanks Justin.
But how is the % calculated?
e.g. -139 v -115

Did you really ask that?

What are the implied odds on the offer, versus the market. As a percentage.

[Ra77er]

(-139) 58.16% vs (-115) 53.49%

http://www.sbrforum.com/betting-tools/odds-converter/

[Hareeba!]

Did you really ask that?

What are the implied odds on the offer, versus the market. As a percentage.

So -115 is 53.5% and -139 is 58.2%

difference is 58.2/53.5 = 8.8% variance ?

But earlier you had said 20c = 20%

If the correct odds were evens then -120 is 55.5/50 = 11.1% variance

Thus my question as to your method of calculation.

[jgilmartin]

He said 20c != 20%

Hareeba, in all seriousness and with no offense intended, how is it that you are not using implied probability on a daily basis?

[Hareeba!]

He said 20c != 20%

Hareeba, in all seriousness and with no offense intended, how is it that you are not using implied probability on a daily basis?

Have only been doing so for 45 years mate

But I remain confused by what Justin meant by saying 20c = 20% in the context of this discussion.

[shari91]

Have only been doing so for 45 years mate

But I remain confused by what Justin meant by saying 20c = 20% in the context of this discussion.

He was being sarcastic.

[Hareeba!]

He was being sarcastic.

Ok, thanks Shari ... must be a bit slow on the uptake today

I still would like to see the precise definition clarified by Matchbook though

[jgilmartin]

!= means DOES NOT EQUAL. Does that clear it up?

[Gee]

Actually, I think you're both wrong. (edit: posted at some time at jgil - was trying to find my character map. I was talking about Shari and Hareeba)

I think != is meant to be ≠

This thread has somewhat turned me off ever joining Matchy though...

I don't think this meets their definition of an obvious mistake. 20c != 20%.

[Hareeba!]

!= means DOES NOT EQUAL. Does that clear it up?

ah! thanks for that ... not a symbol I'm familiar with ... <> or ≠ I may have understood, though it is possible, depending on the odds involved that 20c would have been 20% or more

[shari91]

Actually, I think you're both wrong. (edit: posted at some time at jgil - was trying to find my character map. I was talking about Shari and Hareeba)

I think != is meant to be ≠

This thread has somewhat turned me off ever joining Matchy though...

haha well there you go. At first I thought he meant to put a ? instead of a ! but then I figured he was just making a joke.

When the heck did != come to mean doesn't equal? I'm so out of the loop.

[wrongturn]

never mind

[durito]

haha well there you go. At first I thought he meant to put a ? instead of a ! but then I figured he was just making a joke.

When the heck did != come to mean doesn't equal? I'm so out of the loop.

it's a programming symbol.

[QQPALLADIUM]

Have only been doing so for 45 years mate

But I remain confused by what Justin meant by saying 20c = 20% in the context of this discussion.

wow 45 years and still grinding it out...kudos for your perserverance

[Chuck Sims]

Where is Matchbook Mike?

[sharpcircle]

Hiding behind vague guidelines

[MatchbookMike]

Hi guys,

Sorry for the delay in responding here.

Firstly to address the question of 20c vs 20%; the rule has always been applied in situations where the odds have been incorrect by 20% (not 20c) or more from the prevailing mid-market odds at the time.

Even at it's most extreme, a 20c difference is only 4.5% so getting 20c better odds would never constitute an "extreme input error".

We discussed this issue at our most recent management meeting and are currently reviewing the policy with a view to making the exact wording of the rule more clear for everyone.

As soon as I have an update I will post it here, as well as it being updated on site.

Thanks,

Mike

[Thremp]

This thread is great. #1 Hareeba being exposed for his complete fabrications again. #2 Matchbook actually addressing a legitimate concern and trying to make some progress.

[Hareeba!]

This thread is great. #1 Hareeba being exposed for his complete fabrications again. #2 Matchbook actually addressing a legitimate concern and trying to make some progress.

Where are the "fabrications"?
Put up or shut up once and for all.