Feenix…
In order to answer your question you would need to consider the type of company that you are betting against.
In the case of ‘Binary Betting’ there are two distinct types of markets available. The first type is a company which simply acts as a ‘market place’ – It provides a place where customers can bet against each other – this type of company makes its money by skimming off a percentage of your trade size, almost like a fee for transacting.
The second type of company is a ‘market maker’. They generally operate by pricing their markets through a mathematical algorithm with a number of variable inputs such as current underlying price and current customer positions. In essence they bet directly against the customer. They take the view that their pricing model takes a small amount of ‘value’ off the customer each time they trade. The law of large numbers therefore predicts a small but steady profit over an extended period of time.
Let’s take your suggestion about a customer who develops a winning strategy. We could ask ourselves the following question….. “Which of the two types of company stands to lose if a customer has a winning run?” I would suggest that your winning run would not effect the first type of company which we discussed. They do not take a position against a customer and are in fact ‘market neutral’ at all times. They make their money by facilitating trade and on that basis it would not be in their interest to hinder customers trading activities.
This is not so of the second type of company. In the second type of company they act as your counterparty. If you win then they lose. In essence you imagine that you are purely betting against their pricing algorithm. If other posts on the subject are to be believed then it is naïve to think so simplistically. As well as acting as market maker the company is also in control of execution procedures. This presents potential conflicts of interest which I imagine is the basis of your post. My personal view is that certain market makers attempt to gain an advantage by not executing trades immediately. In some cases deals are routed for manual dealing when computers could just as easily execute the trade in an instant. There is a reason for this type of manual dealing. The companies know that during the delay, which is the nature of manual dealing, the market will carry on moving. This effectively gives the company an element of hindsight with regard to its previously quoted prices. If the price has moved in a manner which favours the company (reduced your profit / increased your loss) then it makes financial sense to reject your order even if your order was valid when you submitted it. Of course, when the boot is on the other foot, and the price moves further in your favour it makes financial sense for the company to accept your order because they know full well that rejecting your order would lead to you re-entering the order on even more favourable terms.
You should research some of the threads already made on this subject. In my opinion there is a common central theme – when customers become successful they find that their ability to deal instantly, at the quoted price, is removed. Instead they find that deals take 30+ seconds to be dealt with and subsequently they suffer a massive and unacceptable increase in the number of orders which get rejected when prices move against them. So, to answer your question – Do certain companies ‘take action’ against successful clients? My answer would have to be a resounding ‘Yes’ – they screw with your execution procedures which, in effect, increase your dealing costs to a point where it is not feasible or safe to carry on.
I hope this helps answer some of your questions,
Steve.