Best Thread Capital Spreads

[Phil Mibbutz]

Another possibility is that if SB becomes more regulated and 'legitimised' there won't be any funny business with prices, so the quoted spreads will have to be widened, and the free money offers will disappear, along with the stream of newbies.

 

[gle101]

Sorry, mate. I have to agree with Phil's post above. The only future for the SB companies is that it remains tax free. This is mainly a game for newbies attracted by free money, low margins and not having to pay tax. I say newbies because those who are good at it will eventually be chased off by the spreadbet companies by what you call 'bad client policy'. So the SB companies survival and progress depends on opening new accounts and sucking money from the inexperienced and unskilled out there.

I can't see new 'groups join in if taxation would become a reality'. If so why are they waiting to be taxed to 'join in'? Doesn't make sense. The spreadbetting industry will mature as much as a casino can mature; that's what they are really! They may be able to add some more bright lights and exotic games and give you some free meal tickets but in the end the house always wins!

How do you think the traditional market view the CFDs when it was launched in the 90's,? Most of the CFDs are unlisted (OTC). That SB is only a game for newbies, is just load of nonsense. Betting have been around much lot longer then the real market. The house always win, yes of course, the odds are against you. What do you think applies to trading the DMA, the house wins (the exchange and brokers), simply because the odds are against you. I think you have to consider getting the mathematics right here.

 

[Claudia123]

Profits from Spread Betting will remain free for the foreseeable future as the companies are making huge profits and the government gets revenue from taxing them direct. As 90% of customers are said to lose this probably a wise move!

You can win consistently spread betting as I now do, but I always have 3 accounts so can hedge when they start their little games.

DMA is different the broker gets his fee and you are trading against the market. With SB you are 'trading' against the bookie who don't like to lose!

 

[tar]

. Betting have been around much lot longer then the real market. The house always win, yes of course, the odds are against you. What do you think applies to trading the DMA, the house wins (the exchange and brokers), simply because the odds are against you. I think you have to consider getting the mathematics right here.

No , trading was here b4 betting , and in Dma there is no house , u trade with another people u can make market u can trade inside the spread u can ask for a better price by bidding or offering , u can push the market ( if u have money and u r trading low volume stocks for example ) , brokers and the exchange take commissions only they want u to win and trade more ! the odds not always against u at DMA not like SB the odds is against u , u pay spread , your orders under the mercy of the house ...etc . Spread Betting is for small players who wants to trade small only , and for traders who dont want to pay tax ...

 

[PipStar]

The house always win, yes of course, the odds are against you. What do you think applies to trading the DMA, the house wins (the exchange and brokers), simply because the odds are against you.

Once again, my friend, you are wrong. With DMA trading you can't say that the house wins because you are not betting or trading against the house. You are participating in a real market with real buyers and sellers. The odds are not really against you as they are with a SB or any other OTC outfit who can artificially manipulate spreads and execution. But then again, in the end, it is a skill game for each and everyone of us. And in case of DMA, the house wants you to trade more because they don't earn by doing tricks to get your capital. Instead they earn from commissions.

 

[Claudia123]

Once again, my friend, you are wrong. With DMA trading you can't say that the house wins because you are not betting or trading against the house. You are participating in a real market with real buyers and sellers. The odds are not really against you as they are with a SB or any other OTC outfit who can artificially manipulate spreads and execution. But then again, in the end, it is a skill game for each and everyone of us. And in case of DMA, the house wants you to trade more because they don't earn by doing tricks to get your capital. Instead they earn from commissions.

Totally agree. DMA the broker gets paid whether you win or lose. Unlike SB's a DMA broker likes scalpers. More trades = more commission. Simple.

 

[gle101]

Caudia123 and tar,
Notice I wrote the real market (meaning the stock exchange), betting have a traditional longer history. However, I understand that trading with goods have a longer history. Of course I understand that DMA, "house" don't exit in the same meaning as SB. I thought that was quite clear in my post. From a mathematical point of view this is all wrong. You pay a price to get into the DMA market, so the odds are against you, what ever way you like to look at it. Simon mention a percentage trading the DMA, according to him traders that are losing is about the same compared to SB, around 80%. If this is a correct figure for DMA I don't know. Nevertheless, the rosy picture you are both painting about trading at DMA is not correct.

 

[Claudia123]

Caudia123 and tar,
Notice I wrote the real market (meaning the stock exchange), betting have a traditional longer history. However, I understand that trading with goods have a longer history. Of course I understand that DMA, "house" don't exit in the same meaning as SB. I thought that was quite clear in my post. From a mathematical point of view this is all wrong. You pay a price to get into the DMA market, so the odds are against you, what ever way you like to look at it. Simon mention a percentage trading the DMA, according to him traders that are losing is about the same compared to SB, around 80%. If this is a correct figure for DMA I don't know. Nevertheless, the rosy picture you are both painting about trading at DMA is not correct.

Hi - I haven't read the full thread and maybe missing something here and if so apologise.

But i feel you don't understand the difference between spread betting and going direct to market. It is very simple. Deal direct with market you are getting real prices and no manipulation - the price you see is what you get - no requotes.. Spread bet and you are taking the bookies price based on the underlying market and watch the spreads alter on big news times. There is no rosy picture - you are as good as your last trade.

Personally I have accounts with direct access and spread betters - to be honest I use the spread bet account mainly as it suits my style of trading fx at the moment.

But ask any professional which they would choose. Track Mr Charts down see what he has to say.

 

[tar]

Caudia123 and tar,
Notice I wrote the real market (meaning the stock exchange), betting have a traditional longer history. However, I understand that trading with goods have a longer history. Of course I understand that DMA, "house" don't exit in the same meaning as SB. I thought that was quite clear in my post. From a mathematical point of view this is all wrong. You pay a price to get into the DMA market, so the odds are against you, what ever way you like to look at it. Simon mention a percentage trading the DMA, according to him traders that are losing is about the same compared to SB, around 80%. If this is a correct figure for DMA I don't know. Nevertheless, the rosy picture you are both painting about trading at DMA is not correct.

No , financial betting is not older than financial trading if that what u mean. U can make money at both SB or DMA but in theory the odds is always against u in SB for 2 main reasons : u pay spread , second you r under th mercy of the bookie ( dealer intervention , orders delay ... etc ) . But at DMA the odds is not always against u , it depends on your trading style , if u r a real daytrader ( scalper ) then u join the bid and the offer and this will cut costs in the long run infact maybe u can earn some spread , so it is not the same even if u pay comm for example the tick value for the ES is 12.5 $ and the comm is 4-5 $ RT , so if ur timming is good u can earn a tick at least minus the commissions = some profit even the market didnt move , this is in theory and not all traders can be successfull scalpers .

 

[gle101]

No , financial betting is not older than financial trading if that what u mean. U can make money at both SB or DMA but in theory the odds is always against u in SB for 2 main reasons : u pay spread , second you r under th mercy of the bookie ( dealer intervention , orders delay ... etc ) . But at DMA the odds is not always against u , it depends on your trading style , if u r a real daytrader ( scalper ) then u join the bid and the offer and this will cut costs in the long run infact maybe u can earn some spread , so it is not the same even if u pay comm for example the tick value for the ES is 12.5 $ and the comm is 4-5 $ RT , so if ur timming is good u can earn a tick at least minus the commissions = some profit even the market didnt move , this is in theory and not all traders can be successfull scalpers .

No, I was not referring to financial spread betting. Again, you have not understood the mathematics behind trading. The moment you get into the trade the odds are against you, which ever way direction the market is heading. You pay the commission and for the most part a spread. The odds are against you and you start on minus. How a good a trader you are have nothing to do with it at all.

 

[Phil Mibbutz]

You've lost me now, gle. With SB the odds are always going to be against you, at least partly because they do their utmost to prevent you from opening a bet if it immediately goes your way. As tar says, with DMA there's the possibility of paying zero spread, which can cover the commission.

 

[tar]

No, I was not referring to financial spread betting. Again, you have not understood the mathematics behind trading. The moment you get into the trade the odds are against you, which ever way direction the market is heading. You pay the commission and for the most part a spread. The odds are against you and you start on minus. How a good a trader you are have nothing to do with it at all.

If u mean traditional betting then also traditional trading is b4 traditional betting , trading is esential for life .
Regarding the spread on DMA u can pay spread , somtimes u pay zero spread , and for some traders it is possible to earn spread ( buy on the bid sell on the offer ) ...

 

[gle101]

You've lost me now, gle. With SB the odds are always going to be against you, at least partly because they do their utmost to prevent you from opening a bet if it immediately goes your way. As tar says, with DMA there's the possibility of paying zero spread, which can cover the commission.

Well it all depends how you look at it. If the spread is zero you start out on being even on the trade (this without the commission included), but you still have to pay the commission. Are you really getting something for free? Please elaborate if you feel my viewpoint is totally wrong. Yes I agree, failed execution (when you are expecting to get filled), adds to SB disadvantage.

 

[gle101]

Hi - I haven't read the full thread and maybe missing something here and if so apologise.

But i feel you don't understand the difference between spread betting and going direct to market. It is very simple. Deal direct with market you are getting real prices and no manipulation - the price you see is what you get - no requotes.. Spread bet and you are taking the bookies price based on the underlying market and watch the spreads alter on big news times. There is no rosy picture - you are as good as your last trade.

Personally I have accounts with direct access and spread betters - to be honest I use the spread bet account mainly as it suits my style of trading fx at the moment.

But ask any professional which they would choose. Track Mr Charts down see what he has to say.

No problem, what I think, we can agree upon is, for the most part the odds are better trading the DMA (not always though). Even with DMA, you don't always get filled, at the price requested, depending on what kind of order you are sending to the market. If you can coupe with higher deposit, stakes, margin and so on, DMA is definitely to be preferred (unless you feel the taxation issue for SB overrides). However, SB play an important part for many traders, not only newbies, as mentioned by some members on this thread. I would also like to add, the discussion we recently have had on this thread, is not SB vs DMA (they both have their advantages), but implications of SB becoming taxable.

 

[Claudia123]

No problem, what I think, we can agree upon is, for the most part the odds are better trading the DMA (not always though). Even with DMA, you don't always get filled, at the price requested, depending on what kind of order you are sending to the market. If you can coupe with higher deposit, stakes, margin and so on, DMA is definitely to be preferred (unless you feel the taxation issue for SB overrides). However, SB play an important part for many traders, not only newbies, as mentioned by some members on this thread. I would also like to add, the discussion we recently have had on this thread, is not SB vs DMA (they both have their advantages), but implications of SB becoming taxable.

OK -think we getting there! Implications of SB becoming taxable-not going to happen in short term. Most gamblers lose (80/90% is quoted as sure you know) so SB firms make big money. So Mr Browns henchmen tax the SB firm direct and are very happy to do so.

Lets confuse things - how about spread betting via DMA - have you looked at futuresbetting.com (now prospreads) part of LCG (Capital Spreads).

 

[gle101]

OK -think we getting there! Implications of SB becoming taxable-not going to happen in short term. Most gamblers lose (80/90% is quoted as sure you know) so SB firms make big money. So Mr Browns henchmen tax the SB firm direct and are very happy to do so.

Lets confuse things - how about spread betting via DMA - have you looked at futuresbetting.com (now prospreads) part of LCG (Capital Spreads).

Getting where? And the procentage for DMA? Just let us leave it at that.

If EU in the years to come will categorize financial SB as an official financial instrument, will probably have bearing on how some countries will be looking at financial SB, from a taxation view point.

Yes, I did have a look at futuresbetting.com a couple of years ago. I did compare it against trading the futures at IB. I found they being way too expensive.

 

[gle101]

Prospreads.com is at the moment categorized as a SB company, beats me as you are actually trading the futures with a SB wrapper. I would imagine some countries will be looking at their solution being taxable or not. They are not a market maker in the right sense of the word.

 

[tar]

yeah they r expesive , but i have a question about prospreads ? can u trade inside the spread like DMA ?

 

[gle101]

yeah they r expesive , but i have a question about prospreads ? can u trade inside the spread like DMA ?

I think my above post answer the question.

 

[Phil Mibbutz]

Lets confuse things - how about spread betting via DMA - have you looked at futuresbetting.com (now prospreads) part of LCG (Capital Spreads).

Tried it, and it was interesting to discover that I could make a more consistent profit with them than ordinary SB, despite the extra spread. Problem is that Prospreads doesn't have Ninja Trader any more, so is it worth paying far higher effective commissions (extra spread) than you would with a futs broker?