Joe Peta @MagicRatSF

Author: Trading Bases (2013); A 2019 Masters Preview. Prior: ESPN Chalk, lead baseball writer (2015-2017.) 2023 Release: Moneyball for the Money Set a.co/d/fOR67h1 San Francisco Joined July 2009

Tweets

11K
Followers

14K
Following

604
Likes

1K

Joe Peta @MagicRatSF

2 days ago

@BBGreatMoments Assholes steal content. Now go offer @Super70sSports reparations.

0 0 0 497 0

View Details

Joe Peta @MagicRatSF

3 days ago

@fairplaygov Thank you. The excerpt in the tweet certainly is misleading then.

0 0 0 75 0

View Details

Imagine the gov telling a Deerfield resident that EVERY SINGLE TIME he makes an investment in midwestern homebuilder Toll Brothers, or rebalances bond risk in his IRA, he has to pay the state 1.75% of the transaction. Destroy efficiency and innovation with taxes and then wonder why Citadel abandons Chicago.

Alfonso Straffon 🇨🇷🇺🇸🇲🇽 @astraffon

3 days ago

"Prediction market operators will be required to pay a transaction tax equal to 1.75% for each exchange wager. After the first five million exchange wagers conducted by a prediction market during a fiscal year, the transaction tax will increase to 3.5%." Approved Illinois Budget

5 0 16 12K 7

2 0 9 6K 1

View Details

Joe Peta @MagicRatSF

3 days ago

@QuantCoach I might add that to "sunlight is the best disinfectant" and "like porn, I know it when I see it," as go to SCOTUS quotes.

0 0 0 128 0

View Details

Joe Peta @MagicRatSF

3 days ago

@bbrizzzzzz @Polymarket Congratulations Brooke and team. We look forward to future participation.

0 0 1 517 0

View Details

Joe Peta @MagicRatSF

4 days ago

When I was Lehman’s market maker on Healtheon (remember that one?!?) Janus got so frustrated trying to buy massive amounts for the Janus 20 fund, they went straight to the company and did a direct secondary — at no discount to the closing price — for a huge amount (roughly 5% of Janus 20 AUM.) would have been fall 2000 or early 2001. (P.S. It was a disaster for Janus.)

0 0 12 5K 5

View Details

Joe Peta @MagicRatSF

5 days ago

@chrisfallica @andrewssports Goes down as effortlessly as a Jersey girl at a Springsteen concert. BOOM!

0 1 5 1K 0

View Details

Joe Peta @MagicRatSF

7 days ago

@WCCSG_ Greg Comella, FB

0 0 0 1K 0

View Details

Joe Peta @MagicRatSF

a week ago

@orrdavid One of my favorite factoids is how amazingly similar (and in-line with long-term returns) the SPX, NDX and COMP returns are from the notorious March 2000 top.

0 0 2 117 0

View Details

Joe Peta @MagicRatSF

a week ago

@orrdavid If you bought NASDAQ 5000 on (first week?) of March 2000, do you know what your annualized return is thru today? 😉

1 0 0 286 0

View Details

Joe Peta @MagicRatSF

a week ago

@JoeyKnish22 Both can be true?

0 0 42 2K 0

View Details

Joe Peta @MagicRatSF

a week ago

David, I’m a bit puzzled by your co-sign here. You know where I work; everyday we are advancing conversations with our largest multi-$B customers who are itching to make $5M, $10M trades with us — to start — and not a single market on their “indication of interest” list, has anything to do with sports. Obviously, block trading and broker intermediation, our sweet spot, are works in progress, but I have zero doubt that in less than a year sports contracts will be a dwindling minority in terms of matched volume.

1 0 1 913 0

View Details

Joe Peta @MagicRatSF

2 weeks ago

@LCDail

Mike Meech @meechone

2 weeks ago

Hey @ArtButSports

85 2K 60K 1.1M 1K

0 0 3 2K 0

View Details

Joe Peta @MagicRatSF

3 weeks ago

@LouStagner I like it. I’d also suggest something similar to speed chess. 36-hole event where every round must be played in say, 3 hours.

2 0 4 1K 0

View Details

Joe Peta @MagicRatSF

4 weeks ago

@coopmavs Denzel Clarke requests a recount. x.com/MLBNetwork/sta…

MLB Network @MLBNetwork

5 months ago

We’ll be talking about this catch by Denzel Clarke for a LONG time 🤯 MLB Network + @CapitalOne

4 5 97 43K 4

1 0 0 559 0

View Details

Joe Peta @MagicRatSF

4 weeks ago

@GUP_GC My favorite memory of the Giants World Series runs was Bay Area native and life-long fan, Steve Perry, leading the crowd in the 7th inning sing along to that song (if the Giants were losing.) youtube.com/watch?v=y2N_7x…

0 0 1 542 0

View Details

Joe Peta @MagicRatSF

4 weeks ago

@samtb23 @RufusPeabody @roundrobin42 You'd be very, very wrong. Hey, that's what makes markets -- a difference in beliefs.

1 0 0 37 0

View Details

Joe Peta @MagicRatSF

4 weeks ago

@RufusPeabody Our latest discussion actually builds on a very cogent point you made to @roundrobin42 about PMs/exchanges wanting their patrons to "lose slow." Building on that, when there is patron-to-patron(*) matching, no matter who wins, the money never leaves the exchange ecosystem. So, absent withdrawls, it will always be recycled, to the fee-collecting exchange's benefit. This results is an enormous difference in exchange incentives and post-betting behavior. As you know, the traditional bookmaker must now attempt to get the losing patron to reup, which results in all sorts of predatory behavior. It's a never ending marketing push to extract more deposits. The exchange would like the loser to reup, of course, but it's not nearly as crucial -- because the funds are still in the exchange ecosystem. And if they do reup, unlike the traditionals, the collective customer wallet has actually grown! It's a massively superior long-term business model, to my eye, for every stakeholder. (*) My point to Issac and others trying to force PM to DK/FD comparisons, is that there are a lot more patron-to-patron matches than assumed. That has a huge effect on the business model. And, from being on the inside of an exchange, I believe there's an optimal percentage of each matching basket (MM-to-MM, patron-MM and patron-to-patron) and the best PMs will figure that out (instead of trying, to say, scalp $HOOD patrons for all they can.

1 0 2 809 1

View Details

Joe Peta @MagicRatSF

4 weeks ago

That's two different aspects of the business. From a displayed liquidity standpoint, it's indisputable that exchanges need professional (institutional) market makers to attract patrons, and by extension to exist. As I like to think of it, displayed liquidity is the light the attracts moths. But that's not execution. Take a look at ATH@PHI right now on an exchange, say Novig. The inside market is +117/-121. Let's assume those are institutions offering. (Looking at the depth of the market, it's more likely "they" are at +116/-122, but whatever.) If an impatient, "buy it now" bettor pays -121 for the Phils, that's a patron-to-MM match. But if a patient bettor puts out a -117 offer to the market on the Phils, then the next Athletics bettor that pays +117 will be matching patron-to-patron. The market maker attracted the moths with displayed liquidity, but the moths mated on their own. Exchanges want patron-to-patron matches for a variety of reasons, but they also want MMs. It's a bit of an art to create -- or limit -- the incentives to optimize the mix of business. (MM to MM matches have some value too, incidentally.)

1 0 0 35 0

View Details

Joe Peta @MagicRatSF

4 weeks ago

@samtb23 @RufusPeabody @roundrobin42 What evidence? I've never seen data published showing the three potential buckets (MM-MM, MM-patron, patron-patron) from an exchange. Can you point me to something? I've love to see. (The assumption from outsiders is it's all patron-to-scary "sharp" MM, but that's not data.)

1 0 0 37 0

View Details

Joe Peta @MagicRatSF

4 weeks ago

@samtb23 @RufusPeabody @roundrobin42 I have years of data and first-hand observation advising a sweepstakes exchange. I don't cite percentages because that's a "secret sauce" at each operator.