It's Official - FI Manipulate the Market



  • I haven't been able to logon the forum with my laptop since 9 April after "accepting" the new game rules and T&Cs on that day. CS have sorted it this afternoon, although I still cannot logon the forum via the Android app or my Android phone at the website, but I can live with that.

    I skimmed through the T&Cs on 9 April and spotted two things of interest in the Terms of Use, Placing Bets section:

    "9.12 We use an algorithm to determine Share price changes. From time to time, we may change our algorithm to accommodate changes in market dynamics and scale. This can affect the movements in the price of Shares, both positively and negatively. In making changes to our price change algorithm, we will always try to act in the best interests of the market as a whole."

    So yes, it's official, they manipulate the market with algorithm changes. This is why they do not have in writing, how many shares it takes to move the price of a player up/down by 1p. It's because they change it when it suits them. We saw this last year when we spotted it took 900 shares to move a player up by 1p, but only 600 to move it down by a penny.

    They say they always do this in the best interest of the market as a whole, but that does not mean it is always in the best interest of traders. They say the algorithm changes could be positive or negative in terms of prices, but in more than 1.5 years here, I haven't seen it change the movement of prices "positively".

    This is a bit disturbing for me but if FI don't outrageously manipulate the algorithm in favour of themselves and traders can still make money, I can live with it. No one is forcing me to stay here.

    The 2nd thing is Market Makers:

    "9.13 Sometimes we allow 'market makers' to place bets on the Service, to ensure that the market runs smoothly and to enhance your ability to buy and sell Shares when you wish to, this activity may affect the price of Shares. Alternative Terms of Service and access to additional functionality and information may apply to "market makers". FAQs: https://footballindex.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/360007296577-Market-Maker-FAQ-s"

    Apparently, these Market Makers are a common practice in trading markets. I think it is a bit dodgy, as it isn't the "truth". They aren't normal traders like us, so their activity is not the true reflection of the market. These were definitely used in the bloodbath when football was cancelled, and FI commendably stopped the rot by increasing spreads. People were afraid to trade, but we saw small, regular trading from these "Market Makers". It had a steadying psychological affect when watching the Ticker.



  • @Londoner I did wonder about the small constant purchases going through but I think the general consensus is favourable on the behaviour of FI over the last few months.

    So they have laid bare practices in the T&C's and depending on perspective your could quite easily change out the word 'manipulate' to 'stimulate'.



  • @Londoner i think the market maker part is in reference to when order books come in. I cant see why they would need them in the current format there’s absolutely no benefit to them unless its just keep the appearance of trades going through the ticker. I can however see why they may be needed if they implement a full order book system, if they didnt groups of traders could work together to significantly drop a players price if they chose to do so but market makers would ensure prices stay competitive and offer i kind of guideline price when creating an order.

    Plus market makers are just like regular traders but are often short term traders with large capital looking to make a small profit per trade just loads of times over. I suppose you could call them professional traders



  • What i will say though is that market makers could be a sign that when order books come in it could mean the end of instant sell as we know it as i suspect this lower limit will be created by these market makers and not by FI directly as they are now meaning no real way of selling shares back to FI. Could be bad for older players, non PB holds or the lower priced end of the index. Just worth considering as theres more than one way FI can implement order books



  • Well I've been saying this for about 9 months now 😂

    You are now awakened.



  • @Black-wolf said in It's Official - FI Manipulate the Market:

    What i will say though is that market makers could be a sign that when order books come in it could mean the end of instant sell as we know it as i suspect this lower limit will be created by these market makers and not by FI directly as they are now meaning no real way of selling shares back to FI. Could be bad for older players, non PB holds or the lower priced end of the index. Just worth considering as theres more than one way FI can implement order books

    Could make it tricky getting rid of a seriously injured/imprisoned player or something else along those lines...

    I thought FI had said in the past that Instant Sell will still remain after Order Books are introduced? Some have speculated that it would be at a lower price than now but not disappearing totally.



  • @Boris999 it would still be there by the way of the market makers although if they did go down this route id think FI would still have to offer their IS on some players. We wouldnt know the difference to be honest as IS will just be the highest buy order offered as no one is going to opt for IS if theres a better price available



  • @Ericali said in It's Official - FI Manipulate the Market:

    Well I've been saying this for about 9 months now 😂

    You are now awakened.

    Yes but the mention of market makers would suggest a full order book system not just the filling of the space between buy and sell. That means a bigger change to trading than most will be expecting, different driver behind players prices being the biggest change. It could also mean a lot more volatility in prices within short periods of time. All of that we can adjust to but one thing that could be concerning is the transition from one system to the other as the big change in how we trade could have a big impact on players prices initially based on where traders truly value players. Prices could surge but they could also fall depending on how the market as a whole reacts



  • @Ericali finally, people are waking up. Remember how we were (and a few others) accused of lying and deliberately trying to disrupt the market when we did our ‘delta experiments’ months ago. Vindicated once again.



  • @Sol even going back prior to the experiments that proved it had changed from 900 to 600 & plenty of different delta's in between in coalition to different player prices, I'd been saying since the share split that the delta's were not fixed & there were different 'buckets' for different prices that could be tweaked at their (Football Index's) discretion.

    I had it in actual writing from April & told everyone on here & was largely dismissed.

    It didn't bother me, 😐 I knew I was right & most of the others were talking absolute rubbish.

    Yesterday's news was like someone telling me the sky is blue.



  • I said this 6 months ago - but had previously mentioned the buckets months before....

    0_1586850874677_Screenshot_20200414-083952.png



  • So FI create market liquidity eh, so those shares you market sell but can't find a buyer, they occasionally buy back. The swines, how dare they buy shares back off you depriving you the chance to IS them. How dare they save you money. How dare they boost liquidity in the market. This is a new low for FI.

    Re the changing number of shares. It makes absolute sense to reduce the threshold for higher prices to make continual growth possible. Otherwise would take an insane amount of money for sancho to rise in value. The disclaimer about adjusting algorithm is just to cover themselves in case its not working.

    Saracasm aside, I think some people are natural whingers who can find the dark side in anything.



  • @Ericali said in It's Official - FI Manipulate the Market:

    @Sol even going back prior to the experiments that proved it had changed from 900 to 600 & plenty of different delta's in between in coalition to different player prices, I'd been saying since the share split that the delta's were not fixed & there were different 'buckets' for different prices that could be tweaked at their (Football Index's) discretion.

    I had it in actual writing from April & told everyone on here & was largely dismissed.

    It didn't bother me, 😐 I knew I was right & most of the others were talking absolute rubbish.

    Yesterday's news was like someone telling me the sky is blue.

    I thought it was largely accepted that the delta changed at higher prices, certainly it was in my head that's how it worked, who dismissed it?

    If it was me then I was obviously drunk.



  • @mike778 said in It's Official - FI Manipulate the Market:

    @Ericali said in It's Official - FI Manipulate the Market:

    @Sol even going back prior to the experiments that proved it had changed from 900 to 600 & plenty of different delta's in between in coalition to different player prices, I'd been saying since the share split that the delta's were not fixed & there were different 'buckets' for different prices that could be tweaked at their (Football Index's) discretion.

    I had it in actual writing from April & told everyone on here & was largely dismissed.

    It didn't bother me, 😐 I knew I was right & most of the others were talking absolute rubbish.

    Yesterday's news was like someone telling me the sky is blue.

    I thought it was largely accepted that the delta changed at higher prices, certainly it was in my head that's how it worked, who dismissed it?

    If it was me then I was obviously drunk.

    No, pre-S/S the delta was universal across the board.



  • @mike778 I seem to remember a number of forum users working together to prove the theory; certainly don’t remember anyone arguing against it once the data was being checked. And let’s remember it wasn’t just the self proclaimed god of the forum other notable players helped.



  • It was a number of people working together to nail down the different delta's for different price ranges.

    @Sol was first to notice the delta's had changed from 900 to 600 on the top players.

    I was first to mention different buckets for different price ranges, as I had it in writing from the head-poncho himself.

    This was back when it was accepted across the board to move a penny after the S/S was 900.

    But you are free to re-write history if it makes you feel better. 👍



  • @Ericali thank you Mate 👍🏼



  • @Ericali said in It's Official - FI Manipulate the Market:

    @Sol even going back prior to the experiments that proved it had changed from 900 to 600 & plenty of different delta's in between in coalition to different player prices, I'd been saying since the share split that the delta's were not fixed & there were different 'buckets' for different prices that could be tweaked at their (Football Index's) discretion.

    I had it in actual writing from April & told everyone on here & was largely dismissed.

    It didn't bother me, 😐 I knew I was right & most of the others were talking absolute rubbish.

    Yesterday's news was like someone telling me the sky is blue.

    Let this be a lesson for anyone who questions the Great @Ericali!


Log in to reply