[PharaohUB]

Why doesn't matchbook leave every market open for live wagering like betfair does? Ya i know the liquidity sucks, but thats not really a reason to not have it. It could attract more business. You would be able to hedge your bets and free up some funds if a game you had was well in hand.

[CrazyLou]

Good question. My guess is they don't expect enough liquidity to come close to competing with Betfair as a real live trading solution. They are content with the service they do offer, their platform is great as is, and stepping into another pond that is dominated right now by Betfair probably isn't something they consider worthwhile.

[rake922]

Lou Betfair doesn't accept US players so many members of this forum can't even use it.

On a somehwat related note, I asked Matchbook in 2008 why they don't offer WNBA games. They responded with the liquidity issue.
They offer WNBA games this season though.

[RickySteve]

Is there any marginal cost in offering a market? There's certainly no liquidity if you don't even open the market to trading.

[bleedblue]

I personally would rather have some liquidity for 1 or 2 games a night, than crappy liquidity for every game, and I'm guessing matchbook feels the same way...

[CrazyLou]

Originally Posted by rake922

Lou Betfair doesn't accept US players so many members of this forum can't even use it.

On a somehwat related note, I asked Matchbook in 2008 why they don't offer WNBA games. They responded with the liquidity issue.
They offer WNBA games this season though.

Right, the point is though that in comparison to Betfair Matchbook would likely figure to have barren markets with low liquidity. I'm sure they've given thought to this subject, and are comfortable with their biz decision.

[Chuck Sims]

Matchbook's liquidity in the MLB sides has been substantial. Close to $100,000 on some games. With a 1 cent spread on most games its amazing why anyone would play anywhere else.

[rake922]

Response from matchbook:

Jason -

Thanks for the enquiry.

The marginal costs here are linked to illiquidity, and arguably take at least several forms:

- illiquid markets impose search costs on clients (i.e., illiquid markets are time consuming to navigate and monitor)

- illiquid markets impose administrative costs, in the form of a far higher percentage of client-created trading errors (e.g., "i didn't realise the market was live"... "i flipped my order" etc etc) which must be serviced

- illiquid markets undercut any exchange's reputation, which correlates v closely with its perceived liquidity levels

Maximizing liquidity calls for some blend of opportunity and constraint (e.g., not even the NYSE is open overnight, for example) and on balance, it seems clear to us that all-event live wagering works only with a) greater overall demand than at present; and/or b) designated liquidity providers willing to service the additional games.

In the interim, we'll continue to roll out additional offerings and markets as liquidity at MB continues to improve, using the same basic template we've employed thus far.

We appreciate the thoughts; if you have any follow up, do let us know.

Regards,

-T
Matchbook Trading Desk