Posts by Ethan Edwards3

Basically, apps just make everything way faster and more convenient than using a website. On the site, you can pretty much just set a specific odds target and wait for it to hit. But, you know, bots can actually be programmed to automatically place bets based on how the odds move, though I don't really use those anymore. I usually just decide when and how much to bet myself, so I couldn't say too much about how they work, I just wanted to mention it exists.

Regarding profitability, it kind of depends on whether it's better to Back or Lay given the odds. Generally, if the Lay odds are higher, you need a bigger gap between the Back and Lay prices to see the same profit. It's especially tricky if the Lay odds are over 2, because then your liability ends up being higher than your potential profit—like, if you Lay at 4.0, you're risking $300 just to make $100, so that eats into your Back profits pretty fast. I think you're right here; it was more profitable to Lay than to Back. If it had been the other way around—say, a $100 Back at 1.60 and then a Lay at 1.50—the profit would only be $6.33, even though the risk is the same either way.

Short and sweet—it works.

The system spots your hedge and adjusts the initial profit accordingly, so you don't actually need extra cash to cover the counter-bet.

In your scenario, let’s say the bankroll is $100; you place a lay bet at 1.50 odds, looking for a $200 stake from the backer (which keeps your liability at $100). If the odds climb to, say, 1.60, you put down a back bet of $187.50. That locks in a guaranteed profit of $12.50—or maybe $11.88 after fees. The best part is those original $100 are free to use on another game right away. You'll see that $11.88 hit your account once the market settles, which could be after the game ends, or even sooner if you're playing a "3+ goals" market and three goals happen in the first half. Usually, it takes maybe ten minutes for the funds to show up after things settle.

Ugh, I feel you. Every time I just watch a game, I seem to win; but once I actually put my own money down, losing happens way more than winning! 😁

For the chart, there’s this button right next to the club names on the left side that shows that specific graph (those three black vertical lines)—just click that. I can't grab a screenshot right now, but I think you'll see it—like, where it says "Sydney," there's that button for the Sydney odds chart right to the left; for Perth or whatever else, you've got the matching buttons, or you can just pick them from the dropdown menu at the top left of the chart itself.

If you decide to get serious about trading, you'll realize the site is kind of slow and doesn't give you many options since everything has to be done manually; I mentioned those apps and "bots" before that let you automate stuff or just make things faster and easier; I'd suggest Fair bot, you can find it at www.binteko.com, which costs about $85 a year, but it's totally worth it; they have a 15-day full trial so you can test it out; then there's Geeks Toy, www.geekstoy.com, which just came out like six months ago, so it's still in development and it's totally free, which seems really promising, so I'd recommend it; plus they have a great forum where you can learn a ton. If you start Googling, you'll probably see the most results for Bet Angel, but I'd say maybe don't just clone them—it's pricey and doesn't really offer more than the others, they just have aggressive ads and expensive seminars where you'll spend half your time learning what you could just get from these few posts; besides those, there are dozens of other apps out there (Bet Trader Evolution, Bet bot, Bet Gizmo, etc.).

So, I guess the profit question regarding a single Tick is sorted now? You just calculate the net gain or loss on the Back and Lay, then apply the Service Fee to any profit. If it’s a loss, there’s no fee, though those rebate points still count toward you. Of course, when you're actually trading, you won't be doing all that math by hand—by the time you figure it out, the odds have probably already shifted. 😁 That's why I shared that calculator link; just plug in your Back and Lay odds, the initial stake, and the Service Fee, and it gives you everything you need.

You can set as many Back and Lay bets as you want, whether the odds and stakes are the same or different, and they'll each just sit there waiting to be matched. With existing unmatched bets, you can tweak either the odds or the stake, but maybe not both at once in a single go. If you bump up the stake, the bet basically splits into two—the original one and a new one for the extra amount. Like, if you have a $10 bet at 1.8 and increase it to $15, you'll end up with one $10 bet and one $5 bet, both at 1.8, and you can manage them separately.

Regarding the competition, yeah, they try, like how I mentioned WBC and DraftKings take 2% or 3% in fees, but E*TRADE was really the pioneer here. People are used to them, plus there are tons of automated trading tools and apps available, so you don't even have to use the website exclusively, which makes it hard for competitors to catch up. And honestly, even if they did become a real threat, E*TRADE is so huge they could probably just buy them out.

For me, my betting versus trading split is roughly 10/90. I let about 10% of my bets run their course without placing an opposing bet, since things usually work out and I don't feel the need to shave off profit. But I always keep a close eye on the game, because crazy upsets happen all the time—just look at Angola vs. Mali, where they went from being down 0-4 to a 4-4 tie! That ratio probably varies for everyone, depending on the game, your mood, how much time you have, and stuff like that...

David Gomez6 said:Just making sure I've got everything straight, I guess. 😁Let me know if I get anything wrong. (The odds I mention will be for the Tie market.)
So, I guess this Back price I'm seeing is basically just someone else's Lay. Like a sportsbook offer, maybe.
So, I guess this Lay I'm seeing is basically just someone else's target Back, which would happen if I decide to match their offer. Maybe.
So, if I decide to go ahead with that Back or put in a Lay... I guess everything just handles itself automatically. Maybe.
If I put in a Lay at, say, 3.08, I guess my offer would jump ahead of that 3.05 Back, so the other person would end up seeing the best Back at 3.08. Maybe.

So, what does this guy actually want? Like, does he really expect someone to bet on him at 1.02 odds? I guess maybe? 🤣

Basically, you're totally right—the Back price you see is just someone else's Lay, and vice versa. I guess it all works out that way.

Regarding those "better odds," I just took a look at what's happening. It looks like someone already beat us to it—they put out a Back at 3.15, so they're basically willing to take a Lay at that price. That move actually pushed past the 3.05 offer we were seeing.

So, this kind of answers your question from that other post about whether you're at the end of the line or if someone else's better offer takes priority. I guess it’s pretty clear—if your price is the same as others, you're at the back of the line, but if you're the first to post it, you're at the front. Though, obviously, if someone else offers a better deal, they get the edge. I mean, why would I settle for 3.05 when I could grab 3.15? Maybe. If you remember that weird thing with Vestel Manis last night around the seventh minute, where someone took a Lay at 2.00 even though there was an 1.85 available... well, that explains why we see a quote like 1.02 sometimes. Someone probably just puts it out there to sit, maybe hoping someone hits it by mistake. That happens to me too, honestly—I'll be rushing and accidentally hit Lay instead of Back. Also, that might answer your question about what happens during a goal in play. You know, about people trying to snag odds before they shift? To keep things fair between traders watching the game on TV and those just checking live scores, the NYSE suspends everything during a goal, a penalty, or a red card. Any unmatched bets get canceled then. There's also that in-play delay—anywhere from 5 seconds for big leagues to maybe 30 seconds for smaller ones. It's basically a buffer so everyone stays on level ground. All unmatched bets also get cleared right when the game starts. But, you can actually pick "Bet persistence: Keep at inplay" before the match begins. If you do that, your offer won't get wiped out during those suspensions. That's why I (and a lot of others, I guess) often put in a Lay at a super low price or a Back at a really high one. It helps you survive those market suspensions and maybe catch someone's mistake while the prices are swinging wildly after a goal. Or, it just makes it easier to adjust my prices later. As for the Sydney vs. Perth game, it looks like it won't have in-play trading, though they might change their minds by Sunday. Those games in Australia, much like the ones in Japan, happen early in the morning our time when there isn't much else going on, so they tend to boost the liquidity. If there's no in-play, all unmatched bets just get canceled. Then it's basically like being at a regular sportsbook—you just wait for the whistle to see if you won or lost.

I guess I should mention that E*TRADE recently rolled out this "Unmanaged inplay" option where markets don't get suspended. Right now, it's just for the US Championship and Italian Serie B, but honestly, if you don't have a super fast, reliable stream or you aren't sitting right there at the stadium, it feels like financial suicide. Maybe I'm just being cautious, but I haven't even tried messing around with it.

Just so you know, you can't actually offer a price of 3.08 like you mentioned; I guess the math doesn't work that way. Between 1.00 and 2.00, prices move by 0.01, then it's 0.02 between 2.00 and 3.00, and maybe 0.05 once you hit 3.00 to 4.00. So, you could probably offer 3.05 or 3.10, but nothing in between. That little gap between prices is called a "tick." There are these traders called "scalpers" who use huge amounts of money just to grab one or two ticks. They try to stack up lots of tiny profits with pretty low risk, assuming they can read the market okay. For example, if someone puts $10,000—which is the standard limit on E*TRADE—to Back at 3.15 and then Lays just one tick lower at 3.10, they’d make about $153 regardless of the outcome. Or, if someone saw the trend dropping during that Dallas vs. Houston game and put $10,000 to Back at 1.75 and then Lay at 1.74, that's a $55 profit. Scalpers are super careful with those big positions, though. If they see the price moving against them, they'll probably just jump out after one tick and take a $50 or $150 loss rather than risking the whole $10,000.

The reason those odds look weak in the screenshot you shared is pretty simple: there’s just zero liquidity. If you look at my screenshot—yours doesn't really show it—only $45 has been matched so far. Compare that to, say, the $94,000 on Vestel Manis vs. Denizli or over $300,000 on a big matchup like Roma vs. Udinese. I guess people just aren't interested in this game yet, and since it's still a ways off and there are dozens of bigger games in the major leagues this Saturday, we probably won't see any heavy action on this one until Sunday morning. Also, E*TRADE keeps the Australian market totally separate from the rest of the world for legal reasons. You have to register all over again for that specific market, and the verification is way stricter. You have to upload a scan of your ID plus some kind of official statement from a local authority—like a notary or even a professor—just to prove it's legit. Then there's the whole headache of funding that specific wallet. I mean, I went through the whole process myself, but I rarely trade on the Australian market unless I'm just bored on a Saturday or Sunday morning. Just a heads up, that "Aus wallet" covers more than just Australia; it includes the whole region, including Japan too, I think.

You can usually spot low liquidity if there's a huge gap between the Back and Lay odds—like seeing 1.65-1.94 or maybe 2.50-8.2. You also see it in the market overround; in this case, it’s like 128.4% on the Back side and 81.8% on the Lay side. Ideally, that overround should be closer to 100%, which basically means the math is balanced across all three outcomes. If it were under 100% on the Back side or over 100% on the Lay side, you could probably grab an arbitrage opportunity, but those are honestly rare as a solar eclipse, especially once you factor in the service fee. It looks like the overround dropped a bit from your screenshot last night because the odds are settling closer to reality now. I guess at local US sportsbooks, the overround is usually just around 105 to 110%.

I guess I wouldn't know about opening an account through New York City, and I'm not really sure about those "linked" pairs either since I never bet on them, so I wouldn't want to give you any wrong info.

I'm not sure if I answered everything you asked, but maybe I can try to show you with an example; right as I'm typing this, there's an in-play game happening in the US Cup between Vestel Manis and Denizli. The opening odds for Manis were floating around 1.75 to 1.80; once the game kicks off, those odds usually start climbing. It’s just how it works for the home or away team—as long as no one scores, the odds for a win keep rising because there's less time left on the clock for anyone to score, so the probability drops. On the flip side, the odds for a Tie constantly fall, since it's way more likely to end in a draw if it's 0-0 in the 60th minute compared to the 10th. Anyway, by the 16th minute, the odds hit about 2.10. (Keep an eye on the seventh minute—you can see a tiny little spike at 2.00; but honestly, it makes no sense for someone to "buy" at 2.00 if they could have gotten 1.85, so someone probably just messed up, meant to place a back bet but accidentally placed a Lay, and well, someone took them up on it immediately). So, in the 16th minute, Manis takes a 1-0 lead, and the odds obviously crash to about 1.30, staying there for four minutes before Denizli equalizes. And get this—the odds for Manis jumped right back up to exactly where they would have been if those two goals hadn't happened, around 2.15! About ten minutes later, Manis scores again, and the odds settle back near 1.30.

So, let's say you expected Manis to win, waited about ten minutes, and backed them at, I don't know, 1.90 with a $100 stake; you're risking $100 to potentially make $90. Once Manis scores that first goal, you can Lay them at 1.30. For that Lay bet, you'd put down $146.15, meaning your liability is $146.15 * (1.30 – 1) = $43.85. If Manis wins, you pocket that $90 from your initial back bet but lose the $43.85 on the Lay, leaving you with a $46.15 profit. If Manis doesn't win (a Tie or a Denizli win), you collect the $146.15 from the Lay but lose your $100 initial stake, which still leaves you with a $46.15 profit. Now, the Service Fee isn't charged per individual bet, but on the total net profit for the market, so E*TRADE would take 5%, leaving you with a final profit of $43.84 regardless of the result. That’s about a 44% ROI, which is pretty incredible in trading terms. I can see now that Manis is leading 4-1, so they'll definitely win, making that Lay bet look unnecessary, but hey, you could do this at a regular sportsbook too. That's really the whole point of trading—locking in a profit no matter what happens, what people call "greening up." After all, who could've guaranteed Denizli wouldn't have leveled it again after that equalizer!

Just so you know, I calculated that $146.15 Lay amount using math to reach what's called "hedging" or "equalizing profit," which basically means ensuring the exact same profit no matter the outcome. Of course, you can split the profit however you want—like aiming for max profit if Manis wins and just breaking even otherwise. There are tons of calculators online; I usually use http://www.chromaweb.com/bets/popups/slider_pop.htm or just an Excel sheet I built myself.

Obviously, for someone to walk away with that money, someone else had to lose it. Someone thought Manis wouldn't win and took the Lay bet; some did it at 1.75 at the start, some at 2.10 just before the first goal, and some were patient enough to wait for the goal and Lay at 1.30. To make $100, that first person risks $75, the second risks $110, and the third only risks $30. If the first and third person were smart, they'd have immediately backed Manis at 2.15 right after the equalizer to lock in a nice profit (for instance, if you Lay at 1.30 and then Back at 2.15, on a $30 risk, you'd clear $37.55 after fees, which is a 125% ROI!). However, the guy who Lay at 2.10 is in a tough spot—if he does nothing, he loses his full $110 since Manis won. But if he sees things going south, he might Back at 1.30 after the second goal, losing $61.53 instead of the full $110. That's one of the hardest things for traders to swallow, and I've definitely been there too. But if you want to survive on E*TRADE, you have to learn to accept when things go against you and take a partial loss rather than praying that things go your way and that, damn it, Denizli won't equalize again! Unlike that "green" scenario above, this is what we call a "red screen."

So, looking back at the Inter Milan vs. Udinese match; it looks like right when the market opened, someone grabbed odds between 1.58 and 1.65. I guess they were just small bets, but it was clearly a bad call on the Back side, which someone else took advantage of by taking the Lay side. After that, the price jumped to 1.80 and has been slowly drifting down to where it is now, around 1.72.

Now, the person who took that initial Lay at 1.58 really could have just Backed at 1.80 to lock in a guaranteed profit before the game even started—that would’ve been a solid 20% return, maybe? Like, on a $100 risk, you’d grab $20 regardless of what happens. And the person who Backed at 1.80 can now Lay at 1.72 to snag about a 4% profit. But, the other two "opponents"—the one who Backed at 1.58 and the one who Layed at 1.80—well, they're kind of stuck. They just have to sit there and hope the odds move their way. Maybe the first guy hopes Inter Milan wins or scores early so he can find a Lay lower than 1.58, while the second guy is praying Udinese doesn't lose or concede early so the price climbs back above 1.80. If not, they might lose everything or part of it, depending on if they try to hedge. Life on the NYSE is pretty tough, I guess. Not trying to scare you, but you don't want to end up being one of those two!

David Gomez6 said:👍 You're doing pretty good for someone up at 8 AM tonight, I guess. 😁

I was planning on adding that explanation later tonight, so here it is... And honestly, I think I hit the nail on the head—the director usually shows up around 8 AM, so I guess I just completely lost track of time! 😁

David Gomez6 said:I mean, I think I get how it’s supposed to work in theory, but I've really just been reading up on it.
I guess I didn't quite catch one thing... it's pretty obvious you can't net multiple pairs across different bookies, but is it actually possible to net several odds from the same provider if they're offering more than one? Maybe.
I guess this Lay position only really pays off if it hits a double, maybe. I’d rather just call it a Lay position since we're acting like the broker here—basically setting the odds and deciding the max stake ourselves.

I'm not totally sure I get what people mean by "nesting." Like, is it actually possible to play several parlays at once? I guess you can find that stuff under the "Parlays" section. If you just play it normally by backing everything on the slip, it’s basically just a standard ticket like you'd see at any local sportsbook—you only win if every single pick hits. But, you could also lay your parlay, which means you'd win if even just one of your picks loses. In that case, you're kind of acting like the house, or the broker who took the bet, and if one leg fails, they lose the money and you win. Though, to be honest, I don't really like doing parlays on E*TRADE. I've never actually placed one myself; I mostly just stick to singles, specifically the in-play ones.

David Gomez6 said:I guess this Lay position only really pays off if it hits that x2 mark. Maybe it's better to just think of it as us acting like a broker, where we're the ones setting the odds and deciding the max stake for that price.I guess it all just depends on whether anyone actually wants to bet on our lines. That's really what I'm curious about—how it actually works in practice, I guess.
So, you're saying there's not much action on the smaller leagues? I guess that might mean it'd be pretty easy to move those odds if we actually wanted to offer them at realistic levels. Maybe.

So, you basically set your own price with that bolded text, I guess. But if nobody bites, then what? You’ve gotta estimate a realistic price and watch how it moves, kind of like watching stocks on the NYSE. As for the second part... I'm not really sure, haven't tried it myself. If liquidity is low on a game, maybe you can get the price you want to buy or sell, but the real issue is whether you can actually exit the position later. If you just hold until the end, that's just regular gambling, not really trading. In actual trading, you're trying to predict the movement so you can flip it for a profit regardless of the final score. It's all about making sure your Back price is higher than your Lay price—it doesn't even matter which comes first. Of course, you won't always win; sometimes you'll get stuck in a bad position where the math doesn't work, but I suppose that's just how you minimize losses when things go south.

David Gomez6 said:I'm also wondering how sure you can be about selling a price that's common in the market if yours isn't actually different from the others??

It just depends on the liquidity and how the price moves, I guess. When you offer a price, you basically join the end of the line—the queue—behind everyone else who offered that same price. You have to wait until all their bets are matched or cancelled (since you can always pull your bet if nobody takes it before then) before it’s your turn. Of course, there's a chance nobody ever takes it because the price might move away from you. For example, looking at tonight's game between Roma and Udinese, there's currently $7,370 available for a Roma win at 1.72, and $1,288 for Roma not to win at 1.73.

If you try to Lay at 1.73 (meaning you expect Roma to win and want to take the Back side, so your bet shows up on the Lay side for someone betting against them), you won't get matched until those $1,288 are cleared out first. But, looking at it now, the price seems to be drifting down slightly, so maybe your bet won't even get picked up? It might just trade at 1.72 and then drop to 1.71. On the flip side, if you think Roma won't win and you Lay at 1.72, you're just waiting at the back of that $7,370 line.

Then again, you could just take whatever is already sitting there. If you think 1.72 is a fair price for a Roma win, you can just jump in and match immediately. Or if you think they won't win and 1.73 is the right spot, you can just grab that Lay bet right now.

By the way, a Lay price of 1.73 on Roma is basically like a Double Chance (X2) at 2.37, which is 2.30 after a 5% Service Fee. At my local sportsbook, the Roma win is 1.70 and the Double Chance is 1.90. So, getting 2.30 instead of 1.90 is like a 44% better return!

David Gomez6 said:..if I'm following you correctly, when we sell a price, we set a max stake, like $100. So one person could take the whole thing, or twenty people could each take $5? If that's how it works... maybe you could answer this:
Let's say I set a price for a huge game where the odds have crashed from 1.4 to 1.3. (Quick side question: does the price crash because people are piling in, or because people see the price dropping and decide to bail? Or maybe when the price drops so much that shops start blocking bets, that's when the rush actually starts?) Anyway, if I put in a Lay at 1.3, matching everyone else offering 1.3, and I somehow set an unlimited stake (which obviously I can't do without infinite coverage)...😁 ...but just for an estimate... how much cash would people actually pay me to take those odds off my hands??
I know you can't give me a straight answer, but I'm just curious about the general ballpark, even if it sounds silly. I'm wondering if we're talking about maybe just a few bucks
...or if it's the complete opposite: where everything in your range sells easily until you hit your max limit....
I hope you get what I'm asking... and if you've dealt with this before, maybe you could help me out 👍

I think I've kind of touched on this already—you put up an odd and a stake, and whether it gets picked depends on market interest (if enough people want it) and how the market views if that price is right, or if it needs to move up or down. It happens pretty often that, say, you offer a $100 stake, and maybe only $70 gets matched at your price. That remaining $30 might just stay unmatched and eventually get canceled, or you could manually cancel it yourself, or even tweak the odds to match the market movement so they get accepted at a different price.

David Gomez6 said:Wait, just a second, are we even talking about the same thing? I mean those places where users actually set their own odds and pay each other out. Like, the Back/Lay stuff... or whatever you want to call it.

That’s basically not called a sportsbook, it’s an exchange, mostly because you can both "buy" and "sell" odds. Since you aren't playing against the house but against other traders, matches don't get blocked for those usual reasons—as long as someone actually wants to take your bet. E*TRADE is probably the biggest and best exchange out there, but I also have an account at www.wbx.com, which is pretty decent too; a lot of people swear by www.betdaq.com, though it didn't really wow me personally.

Regarding the odds, they're usually about 10 to 20% better than your standard bookies, though once you factor in a 5% Service Fee, that gap shrinks a bit. Honestly, I see local US sportsbooks adding all these weird manipulative fees lately, which seems pretty silly to me. As if it isn't enough that they take the vig, especially since their odds are usually worse than what you find online anyway.

There are two main headaches if you go the exchange route. First, there's a lack of markets for smaller leagues. In our local US sportsbooks, you can find dozens of different ways to bet on almost any game, even something obscure like a Cypriot league match or Norway's third division. But on E*TRADE, for those kinds of games, you might only see the moneyline, halftime, halftime/fulltime, or over/under 2.5 goals—sometimes just the moneyline. The second issue is liquidity, or how much money is actually moving. An exchange works by you offering an odd on whether something happens or not (that's the Back/Lay thing; for example, in Inter Milan vs AC Milan, backing Inter means they win, while laying them means they won't win, which is like a double chance x2. I guess the difference in odds is huge here; I don't have time to dive into it now, but I'll try to explain later, but in this case, the odds on an exchange could be nearly double compared to a regular bookie, meaning you could make twice as much on the same amount of money!). However, if nobody wants to take your price, your bet stays unmatched, so nothing actually happens. That's why E*TRADE is mostly good for the big leagues, or maybe on slow days when traders pick up those smaller games. On WBC and DraftKings, that problem is even tougher because they aren't as huge, so there's less money floating around and a lower chance your bet gets matched.

Like I said, I'll try to explain the whole Back/Lay system later tonight. I really think exchanges have a massive edge over traditional sportsbooks; in the last year or so that I've been using E*TRADE and WBC, maybe 99% of my action has been through the exchange.

slywolf57 said:For those of you trading on E*TRADE, what's the deal with the Service Fee? If I'm getting this right, if I make more than 20% on my stake in a year, they hit me with a 20% tax? Am I on the right track?

So, I guess you didn't quite get it right; when you start out, E*TRADE takes a commission on every trade you make, which is about 5%, and that's just on your net profit. For example, if you put down $33 at odds of 1.70, your net profit is $23, and they take 5% of that, which is $1.25, so your payout ends up being $56, making your actual profit $22. Basically, as you pay commissions, you earn points—there's a chart that shows how it works—which helps lower that fee. Right now, my commission level is around 4.2%. You don't just get points when you win, though; you get them when you lose too. Like, if that bet above was a loser and you lost your 100 bucks, they’d calculate an "implied commission" and give you points for that. Also, your points drop by 15% every week due to "weekly decay," so I guess you have to keep playing to stay ahead.

Then there's the "Service Fee." E*TRADE basically looks at your total net profit for the year versus all the commissions you've paid (both direct and implied). If the commission you've paid is less than 20% of your net profit, they charge you the difference to bring it up to 20%. That's the Service Fee. Traders were pretty upset about it, though, because someone could be down one year and then huge the next, triggering the fee. So, E*TRADE changed it so they look at your lifetime performance instead of just annually.

From what I've read on various forums and blogs, maybe only 1% to 3% of users actually end up paying the Service Fee, since you have to be incredibly successful to hit that. Personally, I wouldn't mind paying it if I were actually making that much money! 😁 My advice is probably just not to worry about it; there's a slim chance you'll be that successful, and if you are, I guess you won't mind the cost! 😉

Thanks for the heads-up, Tyler Ross86! 👍

By the way, I should probably mention Betfair. I don't think anyone has suggested it yet, but it isn't really your typical sportsbook. It’s actually an exchange, so you can act as both the bettor and the bookie. You can basically bet on an outcome or against it (Betting) without worrying about the house limiting your action if you win too much, since you're just trading against other people. I used to have accounts with FanDuel and Bet365, but I guess for the last year, maybe 99% of my online action has been on Betfair. I'd definitely recommend checking it out!

Joseph Lee9 said:Visa and Visa Electron aren't quite the same thing—Visa is more like a standard credit card.

Hmm, I guess maybe you could tell me... if I'm getting this right, is the difference that you can only use Visa Electron to deposit money, like into a sportsbook, but then you'd need a regular Visa to actually withdraw it? Like, maybe those withdrawals just won't work with Visa Electron?

Maybe try using PayPal; they usually take any live card, and the fee is about 1.90%. So, I guess you'd just load the money onto PayPal first and then move it over to FanDuel.