Australian
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
I found the following on a site in Australia. What do you think?
Betfair are solely responsible for their own downturn in customers and revenue.
They were getting between 2% and 5% commission on ALL winning bets.
That is an extremely massive revenue stream when one considers the turnover on all the races they cover.
That also had no risk whatsoever, a massive money making machine.
However, since it was publicly listed, they could not report expected growth as punters come and go, a bit like sales, customers drop off, and customers join, one is constantly filling a funnel. There was no growth model at all.
So the boffins decided to hit it's very core customers who supply liquidity which is the lifeblood of any exchange.
Short sighted bean counters decided on a Premium Charge.
The growth graph looked hypothetically great in reporting statements to shareholders and the market.
This is business mistakes for dummies stuff. Hit your best customers where it hurts with no discount for loyalty or turnover.
And there has been more fallout than Chernobyl!
1) It was no longer viable to trade (in the traditional sense) on any market whatsoever.
2) The winning traders left for greener pastures at the expense of liquidity and profit - NEVER TO RETURN.
3) The markets lost more than half it's liquidity leaving punters unable to get set on anything greater than 10/1 for decent amounts.
4) Markets devoid of liquidity meant that the prices were only driven by punters, therefore as a market total virtually became 100% on average, with commission on top. Meat was sheared off the bone.
5) Thousands of punters left in droves.
6) Revenue and growth dropped massively and stagnated with no hope of redemption.
Good one Betfair!
However, this does not mean there is not value to be had.
But the bread and butter traders and recreational punters are the ones hit hard. There are ways around everything, but Betfair have killed their own share price and value.
The latest from the bean counters is to offer fixed odds, scoop up the overround and trade out on liability on the exchange to try and restore some liquidity.
Well, that ain't going to work.
Exchange users want an exchange.
Recreational punters (in the main) will use the bookies or tote.
Leaving only the smarties scooping odds anomalies, costing Betfair yet again.
There are none so blind as those who cannot see.
Or to be more precise, a degree should never take the place of knowledge.
Betfair are solely responsible for their own downturn in customers and revenue.
They were getting between 2% and 5% commission on ALL winning bets.
That is an extremely massive revenue stream when one considers the turnover on all the races they cover.
That also had no risk whatsoever, a massive money making machine.
However, since it was publicly listed, they could not report expected growth as punters come and go, a bit like sales, customers drop off, and customers join, one is constantly filling a funnel. There was no growth model at all.
So the boffins decided to hit it's very core customers who supply liquidity which is the lifeblood of any exchange.
Short sighted bean counters decided on a Premium Charge.
The growth graph looked hypothetically great in reporting statements to shareholders and the market.
This is business mistakes for dummies stuff. Hit your best customers where it hurts with no discount for loyalty or turnover.
And there has been more fallout than Chernobyl!
1) It was no longer viable to trade (in the traditional sense) on any market whatsoever.
2) The winning traders left for greener pastures at the expense of liquidity and profit - NEVER TO RETURN.
3) The markets lost more than half it's liquidity leaving punters unable to get set on anything greater than 10/1 for decent amounts.
4) Markets devoid of liquidity meant that the prices were only driven by punters, therefore as a market total virtually became 100% on average, with commission on top. Meat was sheared off the bone.
5) Thousands of punters left in droves.
6) Revenue and growth dropped massively and stagnated with no hope of redemption.
Good one Betfair!
However, this does not mean there is not value to be had.
But the bread and butter traders and recreational punters are the ones hit hard. There are ways around everything, but Betfair have killed their own share price and value.
The latest from the bean counters is to offer fixed odds, scoop up the overround and trade out on liability on the exchange to try and restore some liquidity.
Well, that ain't going to work.
Exchange users want an exchange.
Recreational punters (in the main) will use the bookies or tote.
Leaving only the smarties scooping odds anomalies, costing Betfair yet again.
There are none so blind as those who cannot see.
Or to be more precise, a degree should never take the place of knowledge.
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 21
|
By:
Yawn ...
... if you go to the General Betting section you'll find that every second topic is a doom-and-gloom whingefest about the Premium Charge. Please don't turn the Australian section into the same thing. Isn't it time we started talking this place up again. The Betfair bean-counters aren't going to do it for us, so it really comes down to us. Do we want an exchange or don't we? If the answer is yes then stop talking the thing down. 1) It was no longer viable to trade (in the traditional sense) on any market whatsoever. Nonsense. 2) The winning traders left for greener pastures at the expense of liquidity and profit - NEVER TO RETURN. Less sharks in the pool means the smaller fish have got a chance. Make the most of it. 3) The markets lost more than half it's liquidity leaving punters unable to get set on anything greater than 10/1 for decent amounts. It all comes down to supply and demand. If it's long prices you're looking for you'll normally find that anything that's not in the first 3 or 4 in the market in most races will drift out to big odds just before the race. As for "decent amounts", that's a very vague concept. The less greedy you are about price, the more you'll get set for, just like any other betting medium. 4) Markets devoid of liquidity meant that the prices were only driven by punters, therefore as a market total virtually became 100% on average, with commission on top. Meat was sheared off the bone. I haven't the faintest idea what you're talking about. Sorry. 5) Thousands of punters left in droves. Because all the whingers kept talking the place down. 6) Revenue and growth dropped massively and stagnated with no hope of redemption. More doom and gloom. And isn't that more a problem for the share-holders and bean counters? Why should punters give a flying fig, as long as we can get a bet on. Short sighted bean counters decided on a Premium Charge. The growth graph looked hypothetically great in reporting statements to shareholders and the market. This is business mistakes for dummies stuff. Hit your best customers where it hurts with no discount for loyalty or turnover. Can't argue with this. We all know that economists, accountants such are dumber than a box of hair. That's just how the world is. These fools run the world, we have to live in it. So unless you're into revolutionary politics and are planning a coup d'etat, just make the best of it. And there's no doubt that, for all its many faults, Betfair is still the best place to punt. I, for one, can get set more often than not. And if I can't get on it's because the price I'm asking for is too great. I can either drop my required price or pass the race. No action means I break even, which is better than backing a loser and certainly better (in the long run) than taking under the odds that I'm looking for. And no ... I don't work for Betfair  |
|
By:
two well presented arguments in my opinion
|
|
By:
I'll make it 3 Craig
filthy traders  |
|
By:
Phil
Please don't defend these greedy pricks. The liquidity has headed south on the markets I bet on, ever since the introduction of the PC. |
|
By:
Betfair started off saying on average 20% better odds, commission structure was always going to tighten up when swing was so big
|
|
By:
Truly i dont understand the op posting argument .As for the response well he well answered his points.For me the op is not making as much as he was.Find another exchange or find another way to have a 3 % advantage as that what is operating on.
|
|
By:
I have a speech impediment whereby I put an 'S' on every word I say. Last time I was in Thailand I asked about a new exchange, and I no longer have a doodle
 |
|
By:
Doodle.
A doodle is an unfocused or unconscious drawing made while a person's attention is otherwise occupied. Doodles are simple drawings that can have concrete representational meaning or may just be abstract shapes. |
|
By:
Thanks for the enlightenment. I suppose I don't really need one.
|
|
By:
The_Ocho
Small minded careful ****.Imo. |
|
By:
T w a t.
|
|
By:
 |
|
By:
he meant a chicken noodle
|
|
By:
Ha.
|
|
By:
Quote (from the op)
There are none so blind as those who cannot see. Open your eyes you idiot. You can see and are not blind but obviously blind to the great opportunities that your small minded and thick attitude limits you. |
|
By:
Which op did you have?
|
|
By:
I may be the OP but it is not me who posted this on another site however I do agree with him.
Here is the counter response to PittsburgPhil from the author of the OP (not me): I am probably making more now than I did before, but it's harder and with Aus races I can't get set early on many horses, I have to wait until the last ten minutes. Before PC and levies, that was not the case. 1) It was no longer viable to trade (in the traditional sense) on any market whatsoever. Nonsense. Clearly this bloke is not a tick trader. Neither am I, I was just pointing out that tick traders have all but left because of the PC. 2) The winning traders left for greener pastures at the expense of liquidity and profit - NEVER TO RETURN. Less sharks in the pool means the smaller fish have got a chance. Make the most of it. Nope, that doesn't follow. Less fish in the pool means a smaller pool in this case and prices that would have been there aren't, because traders aren't trying to get on or get out. 3) The markets lost more than half it's liquidity leaving punters unable to get set on anything greater than 10/1 for decent amounts. It all comes down to supply and demand. If it's long prices you're looking for you'll normally find that anything that's not in the first 3 or 4 in the market in most races will drift out to big odds just before the race. As for "decent amounts", that's a very vague concept. The less greedy you are about price, the more you'll get set for, just like any other betting medium. I did not do any betting for the early part of yesterday, I watched the markets quite a bit though. The amount of money available at anything outside a few fancied runners even on metro races was dismal (with some exceptions). Greedy is a vague concept also. 4) Markets devoid of liquidity meant that the prices were only driven by punters, therefore as a market total virtually became 100% on average, with commission on top. Meat was sheared off the bone. I haven't the faintest idea what you're talking about. Sorry. He doesn't understand market percentages fully. 5) Thousands of punters left in droves. Because all the whingers kept talking the place down. No they left the forum for that reason, they left Betfair because of Premium Charges - fact. 6) Revenue and growth dropped massively and stagnated with no hope of redemption. More doom and gloom. And isn't that more a problem for the share-holders and bean counters? Why should punters give a flying fig, as long as we can get a bet on. Because it's getting harder and harder to get a bet on, that's the point. |
|
By:
4) Markets devoid of liquidity meant that the prices were only driven by punters, therefore as a market total virtually became 100% on average, with commission on top. Meat was sheared off the bone.
I understand market percentages. What I don't understand is the above sentence. It's grammatically incorrect, and for that reason, is completely incomprehensible. Maybe if you write it again, in correct English, I might be able to think about whether it's a correct statement or not. I'm not trying to be the Grammar Nazi, by the way. I'm just saying that the statement is extremely confusing because of the way it has been written. |
|
By:
I don't understand it either Phil and I am a GENIUS.
|
|
By:
1) It was no longer viable to trade (in the traditional sense) on any market whatsoever.
My comment: Nonsense. Clearly this bloke is not a tick trader. Neither am I, I was just pointing out that tick traders have all but left because of the PC. Isn't a "tick" a kind of parasite? |
|
By:
beautiful reply
 |