Matching Engine



  • The very simple solution to the current mess is for FI to do two things:

    (a) limit matching engine bids to no less than 80% of the ‘buy now‘ price; and
    (b) step in and offer 75% bids, where the market provides no bid.

    Easy. No major change required.

    Traders will still be able to pick up bargains at up to 20% less than the buy now price.

    Traders will be guaranteed an exit on holds at OK (but not great) prices.

    FI will still have far less liability than they did pre coronavirus, when IS was often set at 90-95% of full price and there was no market bidding system.

    Confidence will return within weeks.

    (Yes, I am a genius and would like an open top bus parade for this idea.)



  • @ocs123

    Hate to point out the flaw in your genius plan but the current "buy now price" is unrealistically too high, across whole swathes of the market right now. Why? because it was artificially supported by FI backed IS previously, now that support has been withdrawn the prices paid (i.e actual demand funded by real cash bids) are far lower, often only 50-60% of the MS price, but this is nearer the players correct price (as determined by market demand).

    To limit buy orders at an unrealistic % of an already over inflated price would simply drive buyers away either off the platform entirely or back to sit on their cash until prices were more realistic. Sellers justifiably feel stranded & helpless right now but reducing demand would only makes things worse.

    The correct (genius!) answer is to allow sell orders, which means full OB's, this would allow actual supply & demand to interact & form a market equilbrium price giving both buyers & sellers a fair outcome either side of the players true price. Whilst this is likely at least in the short term to be lower than the current MS, yet higher than IS, it would allow liquidity to return & price growth to follow based on either player performances &/or platform organic growth (more buyer demand over time).



  • @ocs123 Agree with both a) and b). At least then we will have bids beyond the 80% too. Most players at the moment are offering a poor average sale price. So little option to cash out at a decent price and reinvest. About three quarters of my port offer a sale price below the price I paid, percentage wise and I'm down this month for the first time in 9 months since joining

    Some are taking a big hit too. I noticed Pogba's sell price drop to about 6.50 yesterday in the second half of Sheff U game, possibly putting the money into Martial. Someone must have decided to cash in on a lot of shares perhaps because Pogba wasn't having a big rise on his return. But I guess that's a 20% hit like most right now. This is definitely punishing the impatient or those that just want to cash out



  • @Geronimo159387

    The buy now price wasn’t unrealistic for 5 years, so why is it suddenly now?

    Answer... because FI fundamentally changed the market and how it operates.

    External and alien change.

    If you’re unsatisfied with my suggestion above, then the alternative is that the matching engine can fuck off entirely, that or the Index dies a slow death.



  • @ocs123 said in Matching Engine:

    The buy now price wasn’t unrealistic for 5 years, so why is it suddenly now?
    Answer... because FI fundamentally changed the market and how it operates.

    Which introduced fear & uncertainty & in the process destroyed much market confidence & buyer demand which has resulted in the current stagnation & lower buyer demand funded IS prices. We seem to agree on the problem but just have different solutions to address it & whilst I believe both would work I'm also certain that FI won't be reintroducing yours. They have clearly set a path towards full OB's & I believe in time that will provide a successful solution but I do have sympathy with those who are sitting on holds bought under the previous system (which at least in part relied on a FI backed IS exit) & now justifiably feel betrayed.

    For what it's worth I think FI have handled the transition towards OB's appallingly, even though I believe it was done in the best long term interests of the platform, & that they should still act appropriately to offer those stranded sellers a fair exit. Whether they will or not seems rather unlikely IMHO but I think trying to second guess FI decision making often proves impossible. I firmly believe in the strength of the product & that future growth will be strong but I also don't feel it's appropriate behaviour to leave customers feeling cheated & betrayed along the way, responsible gambling applies equally to platform operators as it does users IMO.



  • @Geronimo159387 said in Matching Engine:

    They have clearly set a path towards full OB's & I believe in time that will provide a successful solution

    What are you defining as a "successful solution"?

    I'm struggling to see how order books would be good for users?

    It's surely just a race to the bottom.



  • @Dan-The-Man

    It redresses the balance of market power between buyers & sellers; currently buyers have (almost) all the power & sellers are frustrated, once both sides can initiate buy/sell orders then ACTUAL demand & supply will interact to generate a fair (market clearing) equilibrium price & restore liquidity. Whether the general market & consequently prices then rise or fall will be entirely determined by the conflict between fear/greed, uncertainty/confidence, performance/disappointment but will be an ACCURATE representation of the market sentiment at any given moment. As comforting as it was that FI provided "artificial buyer demand" in the form of IS it was an unsustainable long term business model so better changing the system now rather than risking the viability of the platform at some future date IMHO, notwithstanding my clear disapproval of HOW they have implemented the change, it is clearly the correct direction of market development.

    Given that my view of the medium/longer term prospects of the platform is very bullish I see OB's as a very good thing & those who stay the course will benefit from potentially massive future growth & rising prices, even if it means sustaining some short term market stagnation until all the mechanics are finally in place.



  • I see ME as a short term stop gap, I'm happy with it in that context but would be disappointed if it was around in its current form past the end of this season.



  • Just catching up with the responses now - appreciate the feedback and some good suggestions. i appreciate things take time to implement but FI surely must know all of this and the impact its had/having. in my opinion they are endangering the market, by not finding a quicker solution - the short term damage its doing to existing punters (some who have been on here for years) is a massive negative for me...and they will be replaced with new customers who will not fully appreciate how good the product is or was - therefore maybe will not have such a huge interest(addictivness) in it as we all have, which is whats kept it going.



  • They have to become the MM for the sub 200.
    I find amazing that the market had risen since the Covid started but there there were a lot of promotions which encourage people to invest money even if they could not sell the shares. People trusted that they could sell at some point. These people must feel the have been mugged of. Then to change the rules is unfair. I’m sure FI we’re making great profits before the change so to say the market need to mature is a load of rubbish. This is not a stock market and I doubt there will ever be enough liquidity in the index to support the sub 200 players.
    They should of let the sell of happened instead of manipulate the market to stop it. Because in the end the sub 200 players have taken between 20 to 60 % drop just like they would of in a sell of of the market. In stead FI have aloud the correction to happen while not letting people sell. pocketing the difference. VERY NICE
    No stock market would ever be aloud to manipulate a market like this. So remember is a gambling site not a stock market.
    The dow went from 29500 to 18500 and is now back up to 25000. That the way markets work. They did not stop people selling or change the rules. They aloud the the market to work.

    FI should always be able to be MM. If they sold the shares then they should be able to buy them back.



  • @NewUser218220 said in Matching Engine:

    FI should always be able to be MM. If they sold the shares then they should be able to buy them back.

    Mike Bohan also promised in June 2019 "IS is a very important market support & will remain whilst ever the market needs it" therefore to so blatantly back track & remove it (under the cover of CV) & abandon the buyer/holders who bought players under those "rules" is unacceptable IMHO. FI should honour their obligation & allow, even just that fairly narrow definition of stranded sellers, a fair exit price. OB could then be applied to any new purchases with a clear conscience & those unwilling to accept the new T&C's could leave on acceptable terms. I fully acknowledge that these holders have been treated unnecessarily unfairly & the overall cost to redress that injustice would be relatively minimal especially compared to the potential reputational damage of an ongoing "betrayal" narrative.



  • @Dave-B punishing? You have a choice to hit the sell button.If you’re willing to take a 20% hit to try and catch the next spike then on your head be it.

    I am not suggesting ME has been a full success but traders also need to take responsibility for

    A) who they buy
    B) when they buy
    C) who they sell
    D ) when they sell

    If you’re struggling to sell a 34 yr old in the Hungarian league with no PB and no MB then there’s only really one person to blame!!!



  • If we look back a month or so, pre-ME, I think people were saying the following:

    • well done FI on stopping IS, otherwise market would have tanked in a very bad way
    • IS needs to be re-introduced slowly.

    ME partially ticks that final box. It has allowed some people to exit their holds where they needed their cash out. A side-effect of this though is stagnation, with cash stuck in bids, market buying looking less attractive, and spreads that are too wide for the sellers still in the game.

    So, where next? Absolutely need sell order functionality, and fast. This will start setting a more realistic market price for shares and will surely increase trading? Why can't FI communicate more on timelines for this?!! Their comms is so frustrating.

    But I still don't think that sell orders alone will see trading levels of yesteryear. If FI's IS is permanently gone I think that there is irreparable damage to trader sentiment for some and no willingness to pour more money in. I don't believe market makers can solve it either. There are simply some shit players that are worthless now (should have always been worthless) and I struggle to see MMs helping too much with the very bottom of the market, not at any reasonable (i.e. prev FI ridiculously good) spread anyway.

    If the platform started today, this final point wouldn't be such an issue as people would evaluate the game on that basis. But FI customer base must have loyal numbers with cash tied up in that bottom end and they really need to think about how they treat those customers....unless they are seriously confident new money is coming.

    My port is less affected, with only a small amount tied up in bottom feeders, but I feel for those who have a different port split.

    Digressed pretty far there and forgotten the original Q...



  • @TotalPunt your username suggests the exact scenario for those affected dramatically by the bottom feeder strategy!!!!

    You pay your money.....



  • @TotalPunt

    Couldnt agree more with what you have just written, looking at it from both sides



  • @RedknappsEyelids The point is the game got changed. Previously there was a viable strategy for some. FI shut IS down, going against prev comms, and that seems wrong.
    There was always a risk that would happen but low risk for it to happen without warning and contradicting what's been said before. Can't simply blame the trader.

    Who knows, maybe FI IS will come back.



  • @RedknappsEyelids
    in my opinion this is completely inaccurate. who you bought 12 months ago at the existing terms is totally different to that player now at the current terms. you wouldve evaluated buying that player at the time and amde a judgement on whether it is a good buy - you cant predict that in the future that the goal posts were going to change... and you cant apply your theory of a 34 year old hungarian player as there are some genuinly decent holds which have been affected



  • @RedknappsEyelids Maybe my choice of words wasn't the best, I agree with your points. But we'd both agree patience is key at the moment.

    I certainly won't be selling at a 10-20% loss, I just hope I'll be able to trade again in the near future



  • @G27

    1. It’s a gamble, not an investment
    2. But with a 3yr hold in mind, not an instant get out. Don’t gamble what you can’t afford etc etc
    3. Perhaps this is a good way of rewarding those who actually research rather than speculatively buy any old crap.

    Do t get me wrong I have successfully gained some cap app on crap and have one or two holds that are currently down. But I had a reason to buy when I purchased and no reason to panic sell now. - either Euros, PB league move, future prospect etc. This point stands regardless of whether it’s Paul Pogba or the 34 yr old Hungarian.

    Might be wrong but it seems much of the ire is from people who’ve punted masses into a total punt player and now can’t get out quite as easily.

    You’re either betting what you can’t afford or your impatient.



  • @Geronimo159387 said in Matching Engine:

    @Dan-The-Man

    It redresses the balance of market power between buyers & sellers; currently buyers have (almost) all the power & sellers are frustrated, once both sides can initiate buy/sell orders then ACTUAL demand & supply will interact to generate a fair (market clearing) equilibrium price. Whether the general market & consequently prices then rise or fall will be entirely determined by the conflict between fear/greed, uncertainty/confidence, performance/disappointment but will be an ACCURATE representation of the market sentiment at any given moment.

    Given that my view of the medium/longer term prospects of the platform is very bullish I see this as a very good thing & those who stay the course will benefit from potentially massive future growth & rising prices, even if it means sustaining some short term market stagnation until all the mechanics are finally in place.

    No offence intended but that sounds like fancy drivel to me. Good in theory but likely to be terrible in reality. The way I see it, the instant sell price will become even lower than it is now.

    0_1593087299437_Screen Shot 2020-06-25 at 13.14.40.png

    Take our pal Hazard here. His current sell price is £3.34...

    What you're proposing is that as an owner of Hazard, I could put a sell order out at £3.50, so that a buyer could meet me halfway.

    In reality, what we'll likely find, is that £3.50 will be treated as the new Buy Price, so we'll see a larger drop in the Sell Price as people look to get in at a discount.

    As far as I can see, you're basically advocating for a race to the bottom.


Log in to reply