Best offshore sportsbooks for online betting?

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!

👍 Thank you very much for being so thorough... I have just skimmed through for now, but I intend to study this in much greater detail later!!
...until now, I hadn't really considered what happens to the odds once a game actually kicks off (I assumed they were essentially frozen), and I thought the fluctuations were just observed from the start of the week leading up to the match, but seeing how the combinations expand so significantly... that is wonderful, as it provides much more room for maneuvering 🙂

..however, there are a few points I noticed immediately:
You mention that with my specific offer, I am effectively at the back of the line, but what if my offer is actually superior to the others?? Don't the other participants have the right to choose which provider to accept the odds from? Or am I only at the back of the line when my offer is identical to the others??

What occurs during in-play action at the exact moment a goal is scored? If someone receives that information even slightly earlier, do they have the opportunity to grab certain coefficients before the updates take effect?? In other words, must every provider be incredibly swift in pulling their offers and adjusting them during those moments??

I suspect I will best understand certain nuances by experiencing them firsthand, even if only as an observer... is it possible to log in and monitor the movement of the odds without having an active account?? And would doing so with an account be complicated... is the principle the same as it is with these standard online sportsbooks??
Those activities are illegal using accounts based in America if I recall correctly, so would it be possible to open an account through an acquaintance in New York City and thereby remain within the law??

I just want to make sure I have the fundamentals down 😁. Please correct me if my logic is flawed. (The odds I mention will refer to the Tie market)
Essentially, this Back price I see is actually someone else's Lay. (Much like an offer at a sportsbook)
And this Lay price being shown is basically someone else's desired Back, which they can fulfill if I agree to offer them that Lay price.
So, if I decide to accept that Back or offer a specific Lay... everything is handled automatically.
However, if I decide to offer a Lay at, say, 3.08, then my offer would overtake that 3.05 Back, and the other person would then be looking at the best available Back at 3.08.

Now, what would someone be looking for if they wanted to bet against someone else on X at odds of 1.02? 🤣

But I'm a bit confused—is the offer in this image currently worse than what you'd find at a sportsbook?? I was under the impression that on these NYSE platforms, the odds are always better to attract players. Or do these coefficients only start forming as the game approaches... and are these people just chasing impossible odds??

Also, by "networking," I meant betting on Parlays.
Does that mean if I wanted to include that in my offers, I would have to pre-create a slip and wait to see if anyone wants to bet on that exact combination??
EDIT: ...it just occurred to me, it's equally likely that someone decides on a set of Parlays in advance, and I could simply facilitate that if I choose to...

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 truly must commend you on such an exhaustive breakdown! 👍👍

Now, I find myself curious about a few specific details:
That account of yours with $10,000 and a single Tick—that was actually what drew me to this whole trading 😁 concept, and it appears the strategy offers much more than just catching a single
... ...but I am wondering how exactly you arrived at those calculations 😕
It isn't that I lack the ability to run the numbers myself 😁 ...it is simply that I struggle with that 5% figure; whenever I attempt to factor it in, I consistently end up in the red 🤔 (or perhaps significantly further ahead than the figures you provided)
I am quite eager to know exactly where that 5% is applied (or deducted)
That 5% seems like a rather peculiar line item for this type of business model. It makes me wonder what it would cost a competitor to replicate this exact trading setup while only charging, say, 1%. The profit margins would still be massive, and the overhead would be minimal... especially considering they aren't risking their own capital like traditional bookmakers, but are essentially just facilitating transfers from one party to another.

Is it possible to offer multiple different Lay bets on the very same game?

By any chance, have you come across any data regarding what percentage of people visit E*TRADE strictly for pure gambling rather than for trading purposes? Perhaps you have a personal estimate based on your observations of the people visiting E*TRADE and your understanding of their activities. I am looking for a very rough approximation: is it less than 20% or more than 80%?.. if you can provide a slightly more precise estimate, please do!

What is the typical "Tick" value relative to the stakes??

Oops, I see you mentioned how that 5% is taken!
...but regarding this: Is it possible to offer multiple different Lay bets on the exact same game? ...I meant "simultaneously," though that might be a bit obvious...

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...

Yes, indeed... I have double-checked my math and arrived at that exact figure of roughly 153 in total profit. 👍

I have just sat down and sketched out some hypothetical scenarios on paper, leaving a 25% margin for profit 😛
...though if I had simply been more patient, I would likely be sitting at 62.5% by now 😛 😛

On another note... could you please tell me which keys to press to generate that specific chart you were including in your previous posts?? I simply cannot seem to find the setting for it...

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.).

Just one more quick question.
I was reading somewhere that if a trader places a bet and then sets up an opposing bet that guarantees a profit, the system recognizes this and allows them to keep trading with their existing bankroll (even though that capital is technically tied up as collateral for the bets that haven't settled yet because the game isn't over)

So, here is my actual question:
If someone stakes their entire $100 bankroll on a Lay bet... and they wait until the Back odds have risen enough to want to lock in a profit with an opposing bet. This second bet would clearly guarantee that they either recover the Lay stake or the Back stake (while actually adding a little extra profit), but can they actually use the same funds currently serving as collateral for the initial Lay bet to place that new Back bet??

Essentially, unlike the first scenario I mentioned, the system should theoretically recognize that this specific move carries no risk since it's just closing a guaranteed loop... will the system identify this and allow the trade to proceed??

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.

That’s excellent; if I am following your example correctly, it means playing with a total bankroll of $100 is actually feasible!

It is quite interesting to observe that with odds at this level, the ROI is higher if we initiate with a Lay position and then hedge our position with a Back bet. If we were to approach it from the opposite direction, we would require an initial capital and stake of $187.50, which would ultimately result in lower efficiency.

I didn't quite catch your point regarding the specific role those "bot" applications you mentioned play... Do they automatically execute transfers if a certain odd reaches a desired threshold??

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.

So here's the thing... I'm looking into payouts on Bet at Home and I'm a bit confused. If I choose a bank transfer, what does that actually entail? 🤷

Sean Lee6 said:so... I'm looking into withdrawals on Bet at Home and I'm wondering about the payout process... if I choose a bank transfer, what does that actually entail? 🤷

Withdrawals or deposits, it's pretty much the same thing. You just send the money to your bank account and it should show up within 48 hours. If you want to deposit, it works the exact same way, basically like any other standard bank transfer you'd make to someone.

I pulled out my Visa Prepaid Refresh card and signed up for PayPal along with a few different betting sites, but every time I try to actually deposit anything into an account, I just get this error

Mark Kelly said:I grabbed a Visa Prepaid Refresh card and signed up for PayPal and some betting sites, but whenever I try to fund an account, I get this error:

I use PayPal all the time and I've never run into this. Did you transfer the funds to PayPal yet, or is the money still sitting on the card? It’s usually much smoother once the cash is actually in your PayPal account.

slywolf57 said:I use PayPal all the time and I’ve never run into an issue like this before. Did you actually move the funds over to PayPal yet, or is the cash still sitting on your card? It’s usually much smoother if the money is already sitting in your PayPal account.

The money is in my PayPal, but for some reason, I can't transfer it over to the sportsbook.

I tried it through DraftKings, too. When I log in to PayPal, it shows me this and when I select that last option and hit confirm, it just redirects me straight back to my PayPal account dashboard.

So, I gave it a shot over at DraftKings, but it’s telling me the funds I moved from my PayPal aren't designated for gaming. I tried adjusting the settings, but nothing seems to work—I guess maybe I have to re-upload the cash entirely to get it to recognize it.🤷

The thing is, I can't even withdraw the money from PayPal either. It keeps showing me this. I don't have a credit card on hand, and as for a bank account... I'm honestly not sure what that's supposed to entail here.😕

Mark Kelly said:I grabbed a Visa Prepaid Reload card and signed up for PayPal and some betting sites, but whenever I try to deposit anything at a sportsbook, I get this error

well, did you actually try doing what it says? maybe just wait until tomorrow to use the card