Well, the API is open... to market makers and affiliate integrations. And market makers are being onboarded at a reasonable pace.
The fact is that we need more than "just enough" differently focused market makers to support a healthy ecosystem within the exchange. Some are focused on horse racing, some on football. Some do only tennis, some might be really good at cricket. Golf, motorsports, baseball, basketball, ... the list goes on. Then come the sport specific variations: some are better at pre-play, some at in-play. The sports and market matrix is pretty damn big.
And like in any exchange, being a market maker comes with contractual obligations. They need to provide two-sided quotes, good quote coverage, sufficient liquidity and tight enough spreads. All of which are requirements for a good retail user experience. In return we guarantee them (among other things) reliable event data updates, capacity to sustain an agreed order rate, technical support and an increasing amount of back-office functions.
The API will be opened once we are confident the exchange and its ecosystem can sustain the flux.
> The API will be opened once we are confident the exchange and its ecosystem can sustain the flux.
I think this is the problem, you could wait an iternaty for this to occur / I am not sure how you are going to calculate it. You are delaying the inevitable and if you ask me the longer you leave it the worse it will be.
I am all for a competitor to Betfair but it’s not going to be smarkets if the API stays closed and market makers are treated like god. The ‘fair market price’ / ‘errounous trade’ policy is rediculous, do any of you bet / trade?
I'm not going to debate this any further because it would be fruitless; you have clearly made up your mind.
However, I will point out that it sounds like you'd demand the right to angleshoot without limitations. The rules and policies are in place for a reason.
Betting on a contract after the outcome is known is not only dishonest (read: fraud), it's also the equivalent of trading with inside knowledge on a stock exchange. A betting exchange is not just expected, but in fact required to void such trades.
And stock exchanges also have their policies about voiding (or "reversing") clearly erroneous trades. Such rules are not exercised often, but they will be invoked to protect the integrity of the market place. In case of a betting exchange, if the odds for a contract are clearly out of sync with reality, then trades made on that would be expected to have been done in bad faith. For example: football match is 75 minutes in, home team leads 4-0. No pending penalties or cards. If at that point there were quotes on the winner market which put home team on a 5% probability to win the game, those would be obviously erroneus.
Funnily enough - and this is not something many people would think about - if a betting exchange did not have policies and practices in place to handle such situations, they could be considered to be neglecting their AML (anti money-laundering) controls.
This thread has reached the limits of its purpose. I'll shut up now.
