@nico_vrgwn@Cbb0fe Yes, though that’s like comparing apples to oranges.
If we’re honest, most ordinary people who use bookmakers would never even think of placing limit orders because of the fees.
And suddenly, that’s how it looks with taker fees on Polymarket.
@twincities_T@danawhiteslocks This is your argument? That is opened at -156 on Fanduel and then moved to -500, instead opening there like others.
You can clearly see these lines existed, which are based on BetOnline in the tweet.
Like what are we talking about here.
@troycuban England was a steal, Brazil was def overrated from the beginning, so ended up quite good.
But if winning is that easy, everybody would do it. We all have (bad) losing days, so stick to it, believe in your edge and no doubt, it will have paid off.
@Lastuc1eux As long as a player is a sucker in the long run, we’ll accept large bets regardless of the liability, as long as our odds are in line with the market.
Otherwise, that’s a pretty good summary.
@Lastuc1eux For example, the very large French bookmaker, which is known for accepting very large bets here on X (which are 100% real), and which I can speak for and this is generally true for soft books as well:
Balancing the books is secondary, but not entirely unimportant.
@aluckyaday@12Xpert I don’t know a single guy who MM that match and didn’t had massive exposure on USA to advance, the same case for the England game on Mexico to advance, related to the comment below.
Every once in a while there are events that take so much one-sided action that you get great value on the other side.
Mayweather vs McGregor is the biggest example.
Tonight was another. Congrats to those who bet underdog Belgium.
You’ve likely seen the endless advertising for this prediction market on the World Cup pitch-side boards.
Well, here is the total liquidity for France, the tournament favorite.
I’m fairly certain a random person in downtown LA has more pocket change than this market does.