Talk:Betting exchange

{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= }

External Links

At present, the list is:

BETDAQ Betfair Betsson TradeSports

This list seems fairly arbitrary to me. I can understand Betfair being included, seeing as though it's the industry leader and maybe Betdaq as there's general consensus that it's the next biggest competitor but where do we draw the line from here? Why isn't WBX included for example? I would argue that this exchange has more liquidity than Fasbet, Betsson and Tradesports. I'm tempted to draw a line through all the smaller exchanges and just leave the two biggest ones up but is this fair and is it useful to Wikipedia members to do this? Another option is to just include the DMOZ listing for gambling sites but this list has not been actively maintained and is in a derelict state. It is also fairly irrelevant to betting exchanges. Please comment if you have time. Cheers Wayniac (talk) 23:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Those are not external links. They are internal links to Wikipedia articles. If a betting exchange is notable enough to have an article, then it could be a see also. At the point the see also list becomes too extensive it could be removed completely. In this case we have eight betting exchanges that have articles so I'll remove the specifics and add a link to the category instead. 2005 (talk) 01:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, my bad on calling them external links but the underlying issue still needed resolving. Good outcome, thanks. Wayniac (talk) 07:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Prophet Exchange

User:ProphetExchange and an anon (probably the same person) are trying to insert refs to 'Prophet Exchange'. Google indicates nn, so I reverted. If anyone can show otherwise, please do so here. --Doc (?) 18:28, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Betfair's market share

http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?&range=max&size=medium&compare_sites=&y=r&url=betfair.com shows that traffic to betfair.com has halved in the first 6 months of 2006. Does this indicate that betfair.com no longer owns 90% of the market? Has an competitor taken a lot of their market?

I figured I'd reply to this old query. The 90% market share figure was crudely estimated by betting industry commentators some time in 2005 and it appears to have stuck. There's no way of knowing for sure just how dominant Betfair is (e.g. the number of members depends on one's definition of 'active' members, matched betting figures contain artifacts such as market-making services and trading at low prices) but the 90% figure still seems sensible enough today. --Wayniac (talk) 07:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Name change to "Betting Exchange"?

Almost everybody refers to the Betting Exchanges as such - and not a "Bet Exchange" as referred to in the title.

Shouldn't this entry be re-labelled to "Betting Exchange"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hne123 (talk • contribs) 11:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

It looks like an anon editor changed it in 2003, and nobody has done anything about it till now. Betting exchange is obviously the common term, so switching the redirect makes sense. 2005 12:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Can someone please change the name back to "Betting Exchange"? I'm wary of creating a re-redirect as "Betting Exchange" currently redirects to "Bet Exchange". Also, I'm not sure how to bulk change the pages that link to "Bet Exchange". Hne123 15:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Traders ave P&L figures ?

I am not going to edit the page, it is none of my business. But the following statement in the Traders section may need to be updated:

"The profit or loss for a trader will typically be no more than 10% of the total amount of his combined back and lay stakes." 

Exchanges such as Betfair are quite efficient now and the 'overround' (which is the p&l on a balanced book) is typically less than 2% when liquidity in the market is high enough for a trader to be able to reasonably expect to take offsetting positions. BUT If you know of somewhere where the overround is in the region of 10% PLEASE LET ME KNOW! I wan't in on that action!!! 203.11.225.5 04:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

It *is* your business, your encyclopedia, and you are positively invited to contribute to it. Please edit the article, it needs fixing. Paul Beardsell (talk) 06:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

You misunderstood. The author is not suggesting that traders price up 110% / 90% markets and their bets somehow get matched on either side for a guaranteed profit. Traders take small positions at different points in time in the hope that the market moves favourably, allowing them to 'trade-out' (often many times on the one market) for a profit that is typically less than 10%. Wayniac (talk) 07:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

No, you misunderstand. It is perfectly possible to make markets on a betting exchange precisely in the way you say they do not. Of course, other trading activity is posible too. Paul Beardsell (talk) 06:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Of course it's possible to make markets in this way but good luck getting bets matched on either side! Wayniac (talk) 06:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

No, market making is done on betting exchanges in precisely the same way as it is done on stock exchanges. Paul Beardsell (talk) 15:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Synthesis NPOV

This article has an interesting take on betting exchanges but it is WP:synthesis and reflects a particular WP:POV. Needs a re-write. Paul Beardsell (talk) 06:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Totally agree with you. This meandering article needs to be culled and the key concepts clarified. I also think that there's a lot of general information about betting exchanges in the Betfair article that could be merged to this one. Specifically, 3/4 of the lead-in text and most of the "Controversy" content is of a general nature. Wayniac (talk) 06:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Matched_betting, redirected to Betting exchange??

Hello,

When I saw that Matched_betting was redirected to Betting exchange I was a little stunned...

Matched_betting is a system than THOUSANDS of players in the world use to obtain a secure way to win some money, this system/way is based on sportsbook that have Betting exchange, but it is not Betting exchange, absolutely not.

Matched_betting uses Betting exchange but even that is not necessary, to do Matched_betting the players can use a normal sportsbook and place Betting exchange to the side, using Arbitrage betting and others ways...

Matched_betting is using the bonus given by the sportsbook and obtaining profit using a almost 100% secure way...

Betting exchange is not that.

For that I ask that Matched_betting could be placed as a independent article without redirect to another article, in this case Betting exchange

--Arniemarta (talk) 15:53, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how arbitraging between bookmakers and betting exchanges to exploit bonuses ("matched betting" as some people call it) merits a standalone article. There's really nothing much to say about it. Hazir (talk) 18:19, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be with betting exchanges, it can be with normal sportsbooks by Arbitrage betting and so on.

Thousands of players do that, "Matched Betting" as 159,000 results on google, how can it not have merit to a standalone article. -- Arniemarta (talk) 22:42, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

It's just another form of bonus whoring. Of course there are going to be plenty of Google hits when there's "free" money involved. Hazir (talk) 00:03, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

So you agree with me, Matched_betting is different from Betting exchange and THOUSANDS of persons know the term and know that it is not correct to redirect. --Arniemarta (talk) 00:01, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I think is time to make "justice" and have Matched_betting as a single article and not redirecting it to "Betting exchange" --Arniemarta (talk) 17:29, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Spamming this talk page is not going to achieve anything. What encyclopedic content do you proposed would go in an article on "Matched Betting"? How is it any different to other forms of bonus whoring? We can continue this discussion on my talk page if you like. Regards Hazir (talk) 05:01, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

This is not spamming, I am trying to make truth on what as been made. You talk about "bonus whoring" but that as less its on search engines than "Matched Betting". I do not need to propose nothing to the article Matched_betting because that was already made and it was ok, I really do not understand why it was decided to redirect to "Betting exchange", they are not the same and even not similar. They are two different things as I already made out on previous comments. I'd really would like to figure out how a article can be redirect to another that is not the same thing, and someone like Hazir seems to want this way because of something "bonus whoring" that has less meaning, less its on search engines... an expressing that is less known than the article I "struggle" to make truth off. --Arniemarta (talk) 17:02, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

The [original] article was a poorly written, unreferenced copy-paste job from an affiliate site. The editors involved in the [AfD discussion ] didn't really know what to make of it but ultimately agreed upon the redirect after realizing there's no basis for an encyclopedic article. Hazir (talk) 00:31, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately the editors involved on that discussion didn't understand Matched Betting, and one said that he only found one reliable source... !!!!??? There are more than 170.000 hits on google and only one is reliable? Clearly not knowing something is not a reason to think it is not true, or it does not exist. "Matched Betting" exists, THOUSANDS of people know it, THOUSANDS use it every day and THOUSANDS are learning it. Wikipedia should have Matched_betting as a standalone article.--Arniemarta (talk) 05:52, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Matched bettting isn't that strongly linked to exchanges and can be done without them. Therefore, a separate article should be made or the redirect deleted (or redirected somewhere else). Christopher Connor (talk) 01:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I propose that Matched Betting should have it's own article, as seen on the discussion above, it is a mistake to be redirected. Thank you very much.... Arniemarta (talk) 02:57, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Intrade

Wouldn't intrade.com be an example of a betting exchange? If so, it ought to be mentioned: it's much better known than Betfair outside the UK. Grover cleveland (talk) 03:41, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Intrade tends to be seen (and wants to be seen) as a 'prediction market' rather than a 'betting exchange' which is why it is typically only briefly mentioned when during the discussion of betting exchanges. 109.157.218.219 (talk) 22:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)