Author Topic: BetDaq version of MF pro  (Read 24850 times)

Tags:
  • Tim Vetrov
  • Administrator
  • Posts: 4537
  • Karma: +18/-0
  • Gender: Male
*
BetDaq version of MF pro
« on: Mon, 28 March, 2011, 18:44 »
As it was proposed by our community we have changed and reset the poll.
I'm happy to help Monday - Friday, 08:00-18:00 GMT
Буду рад помочь с понедельника по пятницу, 08:00-18:00 GMT

  • All members
  • Posts: 55
  • Karma: +1/-0
Re: BetDaq version of MF pro
« Reply #1 on: Mon, 28 March, 2011, 18:53 »
Thanks for opening a new poll.  ;D

My vote personally would go for ANY of the top three:

 Yes, separately from a BetFair version - Great!
 Yes, but only if it's cheaper than the BetFair one or free - Good!
 Yes, but only if the application will be able to connect the two exchanges - Amazing!

I have voted for a "separate" application strictly because that would be the easiest option to get implemented of options one and three.  :)

Cheers DarkStorm

  • All members
  • Posts: 6
  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: BetDaq version of MF pro
« Reply #2 on: Tue, 29 March, 2011, 05:45 »
Hi,

It would be great if we can have MF pro for Betdaq.

I do not mind paying a small amt for the subscriptions.

  • Nerd
  • Élite
  • Posts: 589
  • Karma: +27/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • I think I could be on to something here!
*
Re: BetDaq version of MF pro
« Reply #3 on: Tue, 29 March, 2011, 07:47 »
Initially a separate version would be a good start .. with the option for a combined version for those who want it later.
Fortune favors the brave!

  • All members
  • Posts: 41
  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: BetDaq version of MF pro
« Reply #4 on: Sun, 03 April, 2011, 13:46 »
Should be pretty obvious to anyone that a version that connects the two exchanges will bring MFPro to a new level of sophistication! Imagine being able to run arbitrage scenarios in real time between the exchanges..?!?

  • All members
  • Posts: 55
  • Karma: +1/-0
Re: BetDaq version of MF pro
« Reply #5 on: Sun, 03 April, 2011, 21:59 »
Unfortunately the BIG problem MFP will face is getting Betfair to remotely agree to such an application because let's face it this API will be largely beneficial to Betdaq over Betfair. What would Betfair get out of this new API? How could boosting the support of there rival help them? This could change once they learn a Betdaq version will is definitely going to be implemented . They can have a large slice of the pie or gain nothing more and nothing less. Hopefully they will agree as going by the votes it's looking GOOD with 20/22 for Yes :)

Ps: Total votes "17" is wrong here "9 + 8 + 3 + 2" = 22.

  • All members
  • Posts: 4
  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: BetDaq version of MF pro
« Reply #6 on: Sun, 03 April, 2011, 22:51 »
Agree  with Dark Storm about the options.
Also agree with all the other above replies.

Betdaq ppl are really good fun, friendly & genuine ppl. Was invited to Cheltenham with them years ago, hotel & everything paid for by Betmate/Betdaq.  
All I've ever had from Betfair is extra charges added to my account & sarcasm when I complained about it. One of them even told me it was Marketfeeders fault. Hopefully attitudes have changed now that they are Public Company.  I don't believe its healthy for one exchange to dominate the market in this way, its in our interests to have healthy alternatives, which is the main reason I vote in support of Betdaq (Betmate version I used) or any of the smaller exchanges.

Personally I have only used Betfair because it has been the only option if you use Marketfeeder. Prior to that, used both Was well into profit with Betdaq, but at a loss with Betfair. Whether this was because of the then difference in commission rates, just luck or both, I don't know.


PS Darkstorm, I think it must be 22 options voted for by 17 voters (at time of writing). You are allowed to vote for 2 options.





  • All members
  • Posts: 55
  • Karma: +1/-0
Re: BetDaq version of MF pro
« Reply #7 on: Mon, 04 April, 2011, 13:37 »
Thanks for that Percible. :)

I've now updated my votes for option 1 and 3.  ;D 

  • All members
  • Posts: 4
  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: BetDaq version of MF pro
« Reply #8 on: Tue, 05 April, 2011, 04:11 »
Same as I voted

  • All members
  • Posts: 32
  • Karma: +2/-0
Re: BetDaq version of MF pro
« Reply #9 on: Wed, 16 January, 2013, 11:24 »
Yes, separately from a BetFair version - Great!
Yes, but only if it's cheaper than the BetFair one or free - Good!
Yes, but only if the application will be able to connect the two exchanges - Amazing!

  • Élite
  • Posts: 488
  • Karma: +6/-0
*
Re: BetDaq version of MF pro
« Reply #10 on: Sun, 18 August, 2013, 10:28 »
I am with the concensous above and have voted 1 & 3:

Yes, separately from a BetFair version - Great!
Yes, but only if it's cheaper than the BetFair one or free - Good!
Yes, but only if the application will be able to connect the two exchanges - Amazing!

  • All members
  • Posts: 68
  • Karma: +0/-3
Re: BetDaq version of MF pro
« Reply #11 on: Wed, 28 August, 2013, 00:40 »
A separate version would be sufficient here. At least for me.
Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage.

  • All members
  • Posts: 5
  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: BetDaq version of MF pro
« Reply #12 on: Wed, 11 September, 2013, 08:22 »
Hi, what’s the time horizon of a possible Betdaq version of MFPro? Would be very much appreciated if such version came available in the near future!
With the current climate of premium charges at Betfair, it seems certain that Betdaq only will increase its popularity and liquidity in the future?

  • All members
  • Posts: 817
  • Karma: +19/-2
Re: BetDaq version of MF pro
« Reply #13 on: Sun, 03 November, 2013, 10:14 »
I voted for the linking exchanges option. It sounds good in principle but not absolutely sure I'd make use of it. There may be others who are similarly uncertain.
There may be a lot of programming work required to make that linking a possibility.
That being the case I would suggest a one off fee be charged for the linking. This would sort the men from the boys :)
My grandma taught me not to run downstairs and never back odds on.