Arbusers

arbusers wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 17, 2025 2:05 pm

While position taking can sometimes fill liquidity gaps and provide invaluable services to the sophisticated bettor, it brings on the table significant risks. Game fixers, fund passers, odds manipulators, black/gray syndicates would love to take advantage of a bigger than normal liquidity. Thus, they represent a significant risk for the white-label (and Betfair too). A bigger risk for the white-label, is also a bigger risk for their clients that could take various forms. Your account might be under investigation, if you bet the same bets with a game fixer, or, you could be asked for a repetitive KYC and verification if something in your betting patterns do not add up. Understanding whether a white-label or broker engages in position taking is vital for ensuring trust and making more informed betting decisions. In general, while a bigger liquidity is a gift, it can also become a risk at the same time.

arbusers wrote: ↑

Sat Apr 19, 2025 9:52 am

I know I am repetitive but I have to highlight, once again, the importance of the 2FA being activated. It is an additional safety net for everyone's business. At this stage, I m lobbying hard so Piwi247 enables the 2FA. Actually, I am wondering why they don't have it already, it is not that hard and other competitors did it in the recent past. I m sure they understand that no 2FA will come with missing profits.

Other than that, I would like to highlight, once again, that additional liquidity comes with additional risks for the players.

arbusers wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 17, 2025 2:05 pm

While position taking can sometimes fill liquidity gaps and provide invaluable services to the sophisticated bettor, it brings on the table significant risks. Game fixers, fund passers, odds manipulators, black/gray syndicates would love to take advantage of a bigger than normal liquidity. Thus, they represent a significant risk for the white-label (and Betfair too). A bigger risk for the white-label, is also a bigger risk for their clients that could take various forms. Your account might be under investigation, if you bet the same bets with a game fixer, or, you could be asked for a repetitive KYC and verification if something in your betting patterns do not add up. Understanding whether a white-label or broker engages in position taking is vital for ensuring trust and making more informed betting decisions. In general, while a bigger liquidity is a gift, it can also become a risk at the same time.

Since the beginning of the year I noticed an alarmingly increasing number of cases enabling Orbit and/or Piwi. These are the white-labels that offer the highest liquidity, and I believe this is not a coincidence. In a hypothetical scenario that a syndicate, or any other organisation, is attacking these specific white-labels, there is always the possibility that legitimate players are being harassed too. Keep that in mind before using their services.

Tennislove95 wrote: ↑

Sat Apr 19, 2025 10:28 am

Sir, I am really not sure if you use the services and plattforms you are speaking about but you are out of date, 2FA was implemented on Piwi247 for login almost two weeks ago.

arbusers wrote: ↑

Sat Apr 19, 2025 10:30 am

Tennislove95 wrote: ↑

Sat Apr 19, 2025 10:28 am

Sir, I am really not sure if you use the services and plattforms you are speaking about but you are out of date, 2FA was implemented on Piwi247 for login almost two weeks ago.

We weren't aware of it. Thank you for letting us know. Seems our lobbying had good results.

Ste wrote: ↑

Thu Apr 24, 2025 4:34 pm

A very important difference for tennis betting is the void rule:
i just noticed today that Orbit voids if the first set is not completed, while Sharp voids if the whole match is not completed.
This adds more risk to lose both sides of our arbitrage in case of retired player

Ste wrote: ↑

Thu Apr 24, 2025 5:44 pm

You are right, yes... i was on a market, i clicked where it's "RULES" on top left where it says In-play - Cashout- Net of commission etc and in the rules it was written in black "If the match is not completed all bets on this market will be void".

Now i checked another market and it's written in red "If the first set is not completed all bets on this market will be void.".
I dont understand... different rules for different matches?

EDIT: now i checked the rules and i found this:

"22.1. If a player or pairing retires or is disqualified in any match, the player or pairing progressing to the next round (or winning the tournament in the case of a final) will be deemed the winner. However if less than one set has been completed at the time of the retirement or disqualification then all bets relating to that individual match will be void."