The Problem with Pooled Liquidity

  • FI have said pooled liquidity between countries may not be possible but ive been thinking what if they did it by having all indexes reflect the same market values of players but just not allow trading between traders in different countries? Surely this would be a way round the varying gambling regulations while allowing one main index for everyone. Obviously order books may make this impossible but what if the upper market price is always set by FI? They could make it that each individual market affects the others buy price but obviously spreads would vary. It would give the appearance of pooled liquidity while also allowing FI to concentrate on managing one platform instead of many.

    Obviously my thinking behind this that i want to benefit from expansion to new countries and not suffer from FI’s focus shifting and neglecting this established index. My worry is that having completely separate index for each country will see some massive differences in players prices which in turn will make the whole idea of FI look completely random to anyone making comparisons

    My whole idea might be one big brain fart and let me know if this is so but would this not be possible?

  • @Black-wolf personally not to worried as mr Cole said some countries could be possible and some might not be so as far as I’m concerned any countries that can join our platform the better and I also think that by next summer at least 1-2 countries would have joined( that’s my hope anyway) also the fact he said he’d expect the index to be at least 10x bigger leaves me thinking I’m very optimistic for the future of the platform

  • I don't feel too confident we will see pooled liquidity after Adam Coles answers on Tuesday.

    Probably best to not put too much hope into it happening, but if it does then wow what a bonus!

  • @Black-wolf I think with markets running side by side, the comparisons between PB only players would be very interesting but for example with a german FI, presumably based on German media outlets, you would obviously see the big discrepancy between the MB players who are otherwise virtually worthless.

    For example Wayne Rooney, whilst 70p here, might be more like the 27p of Mario Gomez on a german FI, and a suppose the reverse would be true. And you would obviously get pump threads popping up saying something along the lines of 'can somebody please explain to me why Mario Gomes is worth 70p in german FI but only 27p here?' Which would be as much an amusement as an annoyance, particularly when the poster is swiftly educated/discredited. You just know it would happen

  • @Black-wolf said in The Problem with Pooled Liquidity:

    if they did it by having all indexes reflect the same market values of players but just not allow trading between traders in different countries?

    You're effectively creating a false market, which is the exact opposite of what OB's are trying to create!! It would stand to reason that "local" based players would be most popular in their respective countries, more so if local media was also used to generate MB. Yet foreign based players would tend to be less popular so you have immediately created a tension between say German based players being driven up in Germany but down in France, which both disrupts trade & generates false pricing.

    The solution , where pooled liquidity isn't possible (due to local legal prevention for example), is to have a stand alone index with participants restricted, by having to be resident & have bank accounts in the specific country for example & being prevented from trading across different indices. This obviously eliminates the extra boost of liquidity but allows FI to expand & strengthen their presence across borders, a stronger better funded FI benefits everyone. A further complication, but not insurmountable, would be different currencies & their impact on player pricing.

Log in to reply