Betting exchange controversy
The fact gamblers can now lay outcomes on the exchanges has resulted in criticism from traditional bookmakers including the UK's "Big Three" - Gala Coral Group, Ladbrokes and William Hill. These firms argue that granting "anonymous" punters the ability to bet that an outcome will not happen is causing corruption in sports such as horse racing since it is much easier to ensure a horse will lose a race.
Exchanges counter that, while corruption is possible on any gambling platform, the bookies' arguments are motivated not by concern for the integrity of sport but by commercial interests. Exchanges also assert they are well aware of who their customers are and keep a complete record of all betting activity in case of enquiries. Furthermore, customers can monitor the odds on the exchanges' user-friendly platforms independently. Exchanges and the authorities can be immediately alerted should suspicious betting patterns become apparent. Some exchanges have signed agreements with governing bodies of sport including the Jockey Club, with whom they insist they will co-operate with fully if the latter suspects corruption to have taken place. Exchanges have co-operated with police investigations when asked to do so, sometimes leading to arrests.
Acest articol conţine materiale traduse şi adaptate din Wikipedia de Nicolae Sfetcu sub licenţă gratuită GNU.
Martingale
Originally, martingale referred to a class of betting strategies popular in 18th century France. The simplest of these strategies was designed for a game in which the gambler wins his stake if a coin comes up heads and loses it if the coin comes up tails. The strategy had the gambler double his bet after every loss, so that the first win would recover all previous losses plus win a profit equal to the original stake. Since a gambler with infinite wealth will, with probability 1, eventually flip heads, the Martingale betting strategy was seen as a sure thing by those who advocated it. Of course, none of the gamblers in fact possessed infinite wealth, and the exponential growth of the bets would eventually bankrupt those who chose to use the Martingale. It is widely believed that casinos instituted betting limits specifically to stop Martingale players, but in reality the assumptions behind the strategy are unsound. Players using the Martingale system do not have any long-term mathematical advantage over any other betting system or even randomly placed bets.
Effect of variance
As with any betting system, it sometimes happens that one achieves a better result than the expected negative return, by temporarily avoiding a losing streak. Furthermore, a straight string of losses is the only sequence of outcomes that results in a loss of money, so even when a player has lost the majority of his bets, he can still be ahead overall, since he always wins 1 unit when a bet wins, regardless of how many previous losses.[1]
Anti-martingale
In a classic martingale betting style, gamblers will increase their bets after each loss in hopes that an eventual win will recover all previous losses. The anti-martingale approach instead increases bets after wins, while reducing them after a loss. The perception is that in this manner the gambler will benefit from a winning streak or a "hot hand", while reducing losses while "cold" or otherwise having a losing streak. As the single bets are independent from each other (and from the gambler's expectations), the same conclusions as above apply.
References
- ^ "Martingale Long Term vs. Short Term Charts". Blackjackincolor.com.
This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia.
Trading in betting exchange

The advent of the betting exchange has given rise to new types of gamblers - the trader and arbitrageur. Arbitrageurs (colloquially "arbers") attempt to simultaneously bet on all possible outcomes to make a guaranteed profit. A trader operates similarly to an arbitrageur, but is willing to take on extra risk and bet on events where no immediate profit is possible. A trader hopes to make a profit by closing out the bet at a later stage at more favorable odds. Closing out a bet for profit involves collecting more money by laying than is paid out when the outcome is backed back. If the event does not occur then no money is lost, alternatively if a trader is able to lay a higher stake at shorter odds than his back stake then he can theoretically guarantee the same amount of profit regardless of the outcome. On the other hand, if the odds move against the trader he might be compelled to close out the bet for a loss. Trading can be done either before the start of an event or while the event is in progress if in-play betting is offered, although the latter situation can be much more risky.
Traders can make money by betting exclusively with betting exchanges or bookmakers, or by combining the two. The trader could lay at a low amount on a betting exchange and then back at a higher price with a bookie or another exchange. This must be done simultaneously to guarantee a profit or else the opportunity could quickly cease to exist with liquid markets quickly correcting prices and bookies trying to avoid being arbitraged.
Most exchanges post the book percentages (colloquially known as the overround or "vig") prominently for each market. These percentages are essentially the cumulative implied percentage chances of the odds on offer for each selection and for a single winner market will usually add up to more than 100% for all back selections (but only marginally over in a competitive market), and under 100% for the lay selections. This ensures that simultaneously backing or laying all selections in a market will not normally guarantee a profit. Occasionally though (especially in circumstances where odds are prone to change rapidly) exceptions will arise where offers to back or lay all selections will be made that if simultaneously and cumulatively accepted at exactly the right stakes would permit an arbitrageur to guarantee a profit. However, such phenomena tend to correct themselves very quickly and exchanges generally try to dissuade customers from attempting to take advantage of such circumstances.
Furthermore, for a trader or arbitrageur to combine different exchanges and/or bookmakers for a profit requires a substantial price differential if a profit is in fact to be made once the exchange's commission is taken into account. Even between exchanges, such large price differences are rare, brief and usually involve relatively small stakes. Fortunately for traders, almost all betting exchanges charge commission on net winnings only and charge no commission at all in the event of a net loss. This suits the trader's high turnover, low profit strategy provided he bets exclusively with a single exchange.
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, so to make meaningful amounts of money a trader needs to commit a relatively large amount of capital. The trader therefore runs the risk of having a large unwanted bet on an event if he is unable to close his position before the event starts (e.g. if there are technical problems with his Internet connection or with the exchange).
While traditional punters' opinion of traders is decidedly mixed, exchanges have generally welcomed them on account of the vast amounts of capital and liquidity they bring. Traders and arbitrageurs are often credited with "seeding" markets with more competitive prices than would be present without them. However, Betfair's imposition of a premium charge in September 2008 was seen by some as being directed at the most skilled traders, whom it is speculated trade for a loss very infrequently and thus would otherwise pay little in the way of commission. In response, rival exchanges have pledged not to introduce similar charges, perhaps in hopes of enticing traders to move their business (and capital) elsewhere.
This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia.
Exchanges and traditional bookmakers compared
Most exchanges make their money by charging a commission which is calculated as a percentage of net winnings for each customer on each event, or market. Gamblers whose betting activities have traditionally been restricted by bookmakers (normally for winning too much money) have found these sites a boon since they are now able to place bets of a size unrestricted by the exchange - the only restriction is that one or more opposing customers need to be willing to match their bets. Moreover, the odds available on a betting exchange are usually better than those offered by bookmakers, in spite of the commission charged, because the middle man is eliminated.
In spite of these advantages, exchanges currently have some limitations. Because exchanges seek to concentrate their liquidity in as few markets (i.e. propositions) as possible they are not currently suited to unrestricted multiple parlay betting. Betfair does offer accumulators but these are limited in number and type: Users cannot determine the outcomes contained in accumulators themselves. Some exchanges also offer multiples but the exchanges act in the same manner as traditional bookmakers in doing so (i.e. they themselves and not a customer act as the layer of such bets) Exchanges also tend to restrict the odds that can be offered to between 1.01 (100 to 1 on i.e. 1 to 100) and 1000 (999 to 1).
A further advantage that traditional bookmakers retain over exchanges is that bookies are better willing and able to allow customers to bet on credit. There are two obvious reasons for this:
- Exchanges operatee on much tighter margins, which lessens their ability to absorb bad debts.
- Allowing customers to bet on credit would likely compromise customer confidence in the financial integrity of an exchange, especially when one considers the effects of the ongoing credit crisis and the close association between betting exchanges and Internet betting in general.
This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia.
