Talk:Matched betting

This article was nominated for deletion on 27 November 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus.

This article was nominated for deletion on 7 February 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was redirect to Betting exchange.

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Gambling Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Gambling, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Gambling on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GamblingWikipedia:WikiProject GamblingTemplate:WikiProject GamblingGambling articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Gambling To-do: edit history watch purge Current collaborations: Improve an article to FA Improve an article to A Help with the Gambling articles needing attention. Tag the talk pages of Gambling-related articles with the {{WikiProject Gambling}} banner. The link to the Missouri gambling site is now out of date and needs to be updated. Japan section reads as though it was written by the gambling industry - quotes of 160% returns are 'citation needed'.

It is an advertisement containing many inaccuracies.

There is risk and this is not a regular income stream.

Bookmakers can renege on bets and the other half of the arb is open.

These "offers" are not infinite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.61.83 (talk) 10:40, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. I personally know people who do this as their full time occupation. Just because you disagree that it is sustainable does not warrant the article being deleted. 2A02:C7D:8255:FB00:3CE8:1084:A294:D7F (talk) 20:25, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I also disagree. Bookmakers are heavily regulated and competitive businesses, they can't just simply reneg on a wager, because not only would it violate regulations (at least in Australia) but they would also quickly go out of business. Lets say worst case it did happen though, you can simply just go place a bet with another bookmaker, and your good once again. I have been matched betting full time and I've never had a bet canceled on me. Matched betting is risk free, however, there are ways to do it which involve some risk, I think the main thing people also need to remember is that yes its profitable, but nothing crazy, you most likely wont be quitting your job. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2450:1020:726:BCAA:3EF6:658B:3506 (talk) 21:01, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

this is wrong information! why it was deleted the original that was the correct one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChuckNorris9999 (talk • contribs) 16:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I modified the article because matched betting doesn't require incentives by bookmakers. While incentives makes it more profitable, the technique doesn't require it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.198.70.191 (talk) 06:49, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That may be true, but it's not what any of the sources cited in this article say. Your edits need to be supported by citations to reliable sources. Toohool (talk) 07:52, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Changed "better" to "bettor". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.148.89.151 (talk) 06:15, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Section of the article: Matched Betting Services

This is blatant advertising of a 3rd party website. The link has been added for nothing other than SEO purposes. The link to a news website reads like a paid advert rather. This section needs deleting.

Look at how many ASA complaints they have had informally resolved https://www.asa.org.uk/codes-and-rulings/rulings.html?q=Profit+Accumulator#informally-resolved — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matchedbetting101 (talk • contribs)

It doesn't look like spam to me, it looks like a statement supported by a citation to a reputable news source. Could hardly be SEO, since it doesn't link to the 3rd party site, and even the linked news article doesn't link to it. Perhaps the section could be improved with information about other services that have been discussed in reliable sources. Toohool (talk) 21:48, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That section should be removed, unless better sources can be found. The news source in general may be reliable, but this particular article is an interview-based fluff piece with almost no independent journalistic content. 90 percent of the article consist of simply parroting or paraphrasing the interviewee's statements without critical reflection or further analysis. In short, while the information may be mostly correct, such an advertorial (paid or not) fails to establish the necessary encyclopedic significance to include these details. Also, the promotional statement "most popular matched betting service" is solely based on the founder's say-so and should not be included without independent verification. GermanJoe (talk) 13:48, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The existence of such subscription services seems like an important aspect of the topic that should be covered in the article. The cite may be a little fluffy--it reads like a typical profile of an interesting local business, like you find in every newspaper business section--but it's not so bad that the section has to be removed. Why not improve it instead? Toohool (talk) 16:25, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that some information about this aspect would be useful, but we should keep looking for better-quality sources (I just did a search, but unfortunately nothing promising came up in Google). To improve the section in a first step, I have now sourced the section's general information about matched betting services to the Guardian article, and removed the claims about "most popular" and subscription rates. Even if these details were correct, they shouldn't be based on an advertorial. The now-redundant NP source article has a clear bias and is almost entirely written from the company's own PoV, which makes it unsuitable as source for any exceptional claim of significance. GermanJoe (talk) 17:03, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the unsourced betting advice per WP:NOTADVICE. The article should contain a succinct description of the concept (based on independent non-promotional sources), but not a complete step by step guide. Also, relevant technical terms should be briefly explained in context, not in a separate glossary. GermanJoe (talk) 03:37, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]