Suspension of Next President Market and issue of unmatched bets adding to Amount Staked

I notice I’m getting close to the limit to enter into the PRO commission level - the problem is a lot of bets were cancelled when the Next president market was suspended - I never usually get to these levels - it would be useful to make a concession for people just this month due to those issues.

It also seems unfair that you count bets that are placed but not matched - what is the thinking behind this?

Fair enough to have the commission tiers but you really shouldn’t include unmatched bets and bets that are cancelled!

Hi Nigel, thanks for joining us on the forum. Unfortunately we’re not able to make a concession on the limits this month, but we’ll look into making this a possibility for similar situations in the future as this was an unwanted side affect of counting unmatched bets and volume.

As for why we do count unmatched bets, there are a few factors but the main one being it helped target a type of scalping behaviour that we did not consider to be of any particular benefit to the exchange as a whole. We did factor this in when we initially set the limits though so if we had chosen not to do this it’s quite possible the limits would have been smaller than they are now.

We do keep all our commission bands and thresholds under review but on the whole we’re happy with where they’re at right now.

Ok… understood. I certainly think you should adjust for suspended markets where you choose to cancel bets though.

Hi - I had the same problem right at the beginning of the month, and a lot of what you are saying is not correct.

It is not the unmatched bets being counted that is the issue, but forcing people to replace bets and charging for it. It happened to me twice on the same day - I literally re-entered a load of bets and you suspended a second time, and I had to do it all again.

Also - having liquidity in markets should be your number one aim, so to actively discourage it is crazy. I dont mind the concept of a limit on volume, but to apply it without thinking about one-off exceptions or areas that are not foreseeable is self-defeating.

How can a participant plan for your suspensions? Are you saying “just dont bother putting up prices as we might take them down?”. Who fills the order book then? Or do you just want people to take prices and not make them?

Finally, there should be symmetry in all things market related, but your volume calculations massively penalise layers. There is no offset or any concept of market interaction. It goes without saying that backing the favourite at 1.1 for £10,000 is exactly the same trade as laying 100 rags at 1000/1 for £10 each. They both leave you up £1000 on the favourite and down £10,000 on all of the outsiders. Yet in your model the first on is £10,000 of volume and the second way is £1m of volume and gets you banned.

The only thing this creates is false markets as people are more incentivised to go bid side than offer side, and again you have no-one posting prices, and hundreds waiting on the sidelines looking to take prices that never arrive.

I hope that you are able to realise that banning market participants leads to empty markets and eventually no business.

Some very good points raised here Marcos - I’d be very interested in a discussion/further conversation with someone at smarkets who deals with this - not sure who that would be - Jason or a business development person? It’s an important conversation to have I would suggest.