OK just had some further clarification. It's really about a green book as Dooksy said.

I've also found out you can back or lay anything as a straight bet at any price in or out of play. If all 1.01 to 1.20ish's win I don't think that's great for BF, but I'm told that's OK if you want to do it.

Doubt a lot of the API users have switched off yet. Some of those would be in the UK so it's going to take some time to rid the markets of traders.

The markets tomorrow will be interesting.

Punter_A backed a horse for $1000 at 5.00 with Punter_B

Punter_B then backs the same horse for $1000 at 5.00 with Punter_A

Both Punter_A and Punter_B both break even, but Betfair commission could be a high as $130.

This opens up huge fraud possibilities, which may benefit Racing NSW.

Switch the NSW markets off.  Take the traders out I can't see BF surviving the year out.

too logical Barney

How is it a smart move though?  In what way?  Just make a decision, then ring people without telling them they are going to cancel their accounts if they use the exchange like an exchange?

Back a horse, it goes nuts, dumps the rider, you lay it before price shoots, and your account is in danger?

They have just shown they will accept whatever is dished out to them, then pass the costs onto their customers.
If that is the case, then what exactly does BF offer that the totes don't?  Well, not right now, but when all states do the same thing?

Can't say better odds, because they won't have traders setting the market up.  Lose the traders, lose the liquidity, lose the customers.  Simple as that.

Not the case?  Then how was BF catapulted to where it is now?  Simple answer, is traders.  They promoted it that you can back/lay/trade, with commission only on market profits.  That bought the liquidity, which bought the punters.  Simple as that.  Take it all away, and what are BF offering to keep and get people here?

Betfair have two things going for them, the ability to lay, and never getting barred for winning too much.

did it use to say ... and ... or have they changed it

*i meant interpretation of turnover above

Thebas.  What difference does it make if they said "AND" or not.  What they have said, is bet for or against every horse.
Backing one horse is backing one horse.  Laying one horse is backing every other horse.  Laying a horse is just a more efficient way of backing most of the field.

So what is the difference between backing every horse in the race for a profit, than trading a single horse?  Simple answer is nothing except the work involved for the person doing it.  Simple as that.

Realistically, if you are even dutching, and have enough of the market with 2/3 runners, or 4/5 runners, even though only backing half the field, you can diminish enough to make it a negative prospect for BF after paying turnover costs.

Today, trading is gone.  I suspect bookmaking is also gone considering it is EXACTLY the same thing.  Tomorrow dutching more than 80% of the market.  Soon enough doing anything that isn't strengthening your opening bet will be enough to piss them off.

I can't agree.

I have always believed the so called liquidity provided by traders, is highly overrated.

I guess we will know in the next few weeks.

Thebas, I'm a non API trader and got the call.

Why no announcement?  Simply because it is a snap decision that hasn't evolved to the point that they even know to what extent they are deciding on.

Obviously, the 6.5% commission rise will be getting scrapped now?

@ 5% commission, cutoff point is about 77% of the market.  Right?  So if you dutch more than 77% of the market, BF lose money.  @ 4% about 73%? 

So if you back in a 10 horse field, the equal 2.50 favourites, one single bet on each, BF lose money.

For all those that think getting rid of the traders is good because they cause all the trouble, have a think about the impact on everybody and options in the future.  People that rarely trade, are getting called about trading to stop.  Making good money from the customer, but a couple of individual bets are costing, and they are ringing them.  As previously stated, how long until the rule comes in not to back something under 1.30 as it costs them money?


The other obvious point, for people that don't know Australia, they are going to have to research the card just to find out which events they are allowed to do what on.

This is crazy.  Just dump the markets ffs.  Ridiculous.

Why not change the whole commission structure ffs.  The more clicks, the more commission.  Simple really.
Without doing the numbers, something like....
2% base commission.  1-5 bets, add .5, 6-10, add .4, 11-15 add .3, etc etc etc etc...

Obviously different numbers, but the heavier users pay higher commissions based on how active they are in the market.

As it stands now, they have no real structure that makes any sense.  As it is now, the more active you are, the more points you get, the less commission rate you are on.  The less commission rate you are on, the less commission you pay meaning that when you pay PC, you pay anything extra straight back in a lump sum each week anyway.  They provide a benefit to the succesful punters by decreasing their commission, then slap them with a PC.  Makes no sense.

Have a low base rate, the heavier you use, the heavier you pay.  Simple as that.  Will get more punters in paying low starting commission, traders pay more commission as they are more active, win win. 
Not real complicated.  As it stands now, you near need a degree to understand the ramifications of placing a bet, assuming you know where it is geographically in the world.

another anomaly in the PC it kicks in after a certain number of markets played,

sometimes I get matched for 2cents in a market

BF right now are campaigning for Black Caviar to never again run in NSW.  Can see the carnage now millions matched at 1.02 the place would send them into bankruptcy.

Problem is Barney, they listed, and now have to fleece everybody for whatever they can.  Can't have customers taking more out of the market than themselves, makes no business sense.
They have enough customers now they don't need traders any more as they want to cash out it seems.  Bleed it quickly, give themselves a payrise, company loses its customers, they all retire.

Why are all these traders complaining?  If the traders are good enough to identify when it is the right time to take a price then they can take that price and then sit back and get paid out on the race outcome.  It will take longer for the luck to even out but if you are backing or laying at value prices you can still win long term in theory without having to back and lay both sides on the same race

Horse racing betting is all about having opinions about the action out on the track not booking a profit regardless of the outcome on the track