General Betting
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
I have long thought that 250 markets are not nearly enough to smooth out random fluctuations of luck, and that many people who are not even winning punters (let alone true long-term 20% commission payers) could get caught in the net.
So I did some calculations for an imaginary punter who is on a 5% comm rate and who, in the long-term, breaks even after commission. To put it another way, he pays 100% of his long-term profit to BF in commission. In PC terms, he is a "100% commission payer", far short of the 20% mark that BF are trying to target, so he should never be caught in the PC charge net. Let's call this punter Joe. Joe doesn't trade. He doesn't lay off. All he does is back one outcome in a market and wait for settlement. Joe gets just enough value on his bets to offset commission; eg if the true odds on an outcome are 1.95, Joe manages to back it at 2.00.
I calculated the probability that, after 250 bets, Joe would, by chance, be liable for premium charge. The results make horrendous reading.
In this analysis, Joe bets 250 times at level stakes and constant odds. (Things would be even worse we allowed for varying stakes, but that is more difficult.) Best case is when Joe backs at around even-money. eg backing at 2.00 (true odds 1.95), Joe has to win 138 or more times out of 250 to drop below 20% overall commission rate and be liable for Premium Charge. This will happen 12% of the time.
If you think that's bad, things get a lot worse at long- and short-odds. After 250 bets at 50/1, Joe has a 41% chance of winning six times and being liable for PC. Backing at 1.02, a 50% chance of 246 wins (PC again!). And backing 250 times at 1.01, Joe has a 58% chance of 248 wins and being liable.
Yes, that's right folks. 58%. A guy who is not even a winning long-term punter. You might think that Betfair would be content with 100% of Joe's long-term profit. But you'd be wrong. There's a 58% chance that they will hit Joe with PC too!
(That was all just to check if Joe is liable in the week he reached 250 markets. If Joe bets on, say, four markets a week, you also need to add in the chance that he happens to be liable after 254 markets, 258, 262 etc. to find out if Joe is ever liable PC)
So I did some calculations for an imaginary punter who is on a 5% comm rate and who, in the long-term, breaks even after commission. To put it another way, he pays 100% of his long-term profit to BF in commission. In PC terms, he is a "100% commission payer", far short of the 20% mark that BF are trying to target, so he should never be caught in the PC charge net. Let's call this punter Joe. Joe doesn't trade. He doesn't lay off. All he does is back one outcome in a market and wait for settlement. Joe gets just enough value on his bets to offset commission; eg if the true odds on an outcome are 1.95, Joe manages to back it at 2.00.
I calculated the probability that, after 250 bets, Joe would, by chance, be liable for premium charge. The results make horrendous reading.
In this analysis, Joe bets 250 times at level stakes and constant odds. (Things would be even worse we allowed for varying stakes, but that is more difficult.) Best case is when Joe backs at around even-money. eg backing at 2.00 (true odds 1.95), Joe has to win 138 or more times out of 250 to drop below 20% overall commission rate and be liable for Premium Charge. This will happen 12% of the time.
If you think that's bad, things get a lot worse at long- and short-odds. After 250 bets at 50/1, Joe has a 41% chance of winning six times and being liable for PC. Backing at 1.02, a 50% chance of 246 wins (PC again!). And backing 250 times at 1.01, Joe has a 58% chance of 248 wins and being liable.
Yes, that's right folks. 58%. A guy who is not even a winning long-term punter. You might think that Betfair would be content with 100% of Joe's long-term profit. But you'd be wrong. There's a 58% chance that they will hit Joe with PC too!
(That was all just to check if Joe is liable in the week he reached 250 markets. If Joe bets on, say, four markets a week, you also need to add in the chance that he happens to be liable after 254 markets, 258, 262 etc. to find out if Joe is ever liable PC)
Show More
just checked your numbers and i agree with them all
extending the work to calculate pc after exactly 250 markets, working out the figures for any number of winners from 0 to 250 and taking a weighted average (for a larger string of bets you should allow for pc hitting you at any time, not just being paid off at the end, so the figures below are like a lower bound for pc)
bf odds...exp real comm...exp comm gnrtd...exp pc...exp pc/real comm %
2.00...£6.41...£5.03...£0.17...2.6%
51...£12.87...£10.12...£4.91...38.1%
101...£13.02...£10.22...£7.97...61.2%
1.02...£0.25...£0.19...£0.12...47.2%
1.01...£0.12...£0.10...£0.09...73.9%
so in real terms, pc for a break even punter on betfair is a minor annoyance for those who play around even money - it will increase the amount of money you actually give to betfair from your winning markets by just under 3% on average, so you won't break even any more, you end up slightly down
but if you play at the extremes, backing longshots or short odds on then it represents a very large hike in expected payment to bf from your winning markets, and now you are losing your money a good bit quicker
for the 1.01 backer who would normally break even paying 5% commission, it's equivalent to now having to pay 8.7% commission long term
extending the work to calculate pc after exactly 250 markets, working out the figures for any number of winners from 0 to 250 and taking a weighted average (for a larger string of bets you should allow for pc hitting you at any time, not just being paid off at the end, so the figures below are like a lower bound for pc)
bf odds...exp real comm...exp comm gnrtd...exp pc...exp pc/real comm %
2.00...£6.41...£5.03...£0.17...2.6%
51...£12.87...£10.12...£4.91...38.1%
101...£13.02...£10.22...£7.97...61.2%
1.02...£0.25...£0.19...£0.12...47.2%
1.01...£0.12...£0.10...£0.09...73.9%
so in real terms, pc for a break even punter on betfair is a minor annoyance for those who play around even money - it will increase the amount of money you actually give to betfair from your winning markets by just under 3% on average, so you won't break even any more, you end up slightly down
but if you play at the extremes, backing longshots or short odds on then it represents a very large hike in expected payment to bf from your winning markets, and now you are losing your money a good bit quicker
for the 1.01 backer who would normally break even paying 5% commission, it's equivalent to now having to pay 8.7% commission long term
the above workings assume 250 bets of £1 each, odds after commission represent the fair odds
sun , for me this is the post of the year.
Just to add , you have used someone on 5 %. It would look even worse for anyone on lower commission. If we use your even odds calculation , someone on 3 % commission would only have to win 135/250 to be liable to PC and someone on 2 % would only have to win 133/250 to be liable to PC.
I leave it to you to calculate the % that these people would have to pay.
Just to add , you have used someone on 5 %. It would look even worse for anyone on lower commission. If we use your even odds calculation , someone on 3 % commission would only have to win 135/250 to be liable to PC and someone on 2 % would only have to win 133/250 to be liable to PC.
I leave it to you to calculate the % that these people would have to pay.
If it's a new customer he would have the 1 k allowance , but if he has been on here for a while the allowance might very well have been "used" prior to the introduction of PC.
138 wins at 2.00 for £1 wins £138
112 losers at £1 loses £112
Profit = £26
Commission on £138 at 5% = £6.90
Commission as % of profit = 26.50%.
Where's the PC problem?
112 losers at £1 loses £112
Profit = £26
Commission on £138 at 5% = £6.90
Commission as % of profit = 26.50%.
Where's the PC problem?
think you will find commission paid is actually higher due to "implied commission"
112 * £1 * 3% = £3.36 divided by 2 = £1.68
112 * £1 * 3% = £3.36 divided by 2 = £1.68
Only trouble is you need the winning commission divided by 2 !!!
So commission on winnings = £3.45 + "implied commission" = £1.68
Total commission paid = £5.13 on a gross profit of £26 = 19.73% ( Oh dear you have to pay PC)
Can we please have a further 20% of your gross profit = £5.20 - thank you
So from your £26 profit we have taken £12.10 = 46.5% - NICE DOING BUSINESS WITH YOU !!!
So commission on winnings = £3.45 + "implied commission" = £1.68
Total commission paid = £5.13 on a gross profit of £26 = 19.73% ( Oh dear you have to pay PC)
Can we please have a further 20% of your gross profit = £5.20 - thank you
So from your £26 profit we have taken £12.10 = 46.5% - NICE DOING BUSINESS WITH YOU !!!
Aaah..that'll be it.
(6.90 + 3.36) /2 = £5.13
Commission % now = 19.7%
(6.90 + 3.36) /2 = £5.13
Commission % now = 19.7%
DOUBLED , it doesn't work like that. You would only have to pay the amount that would take you to 20 %. The next weeks though you would have to pay almost an extra 20 % in PC if you only had one winning bet or more with no losing ones.
If he was a new punter..what stakes would he need to be playing to use up his £1000 allowance?
Isn't it commission =6.9 plus implied commission =3.36 total 9.26 then /2 = 4.63
That of course is correct - the point is that if you have already paid £6.90 (at 5%) that is 26.5% of your gross winnings - better off at any other high street bookie without a doubt (imo of course)
Sorry mistake with my sum of commission it is as J.T.G. said
Johnny , you have been defending the PC since day one. What is your agenda , why do you keep on defending it even when it's clear that just about anyone on here may suffer from it if they are any good or just are on a good run ? Doesn't matter whether they are traders , market makers or good old fashion punters. Even your mentor Feck himself was caught in the net. Why do you keep on defending it under the current rules for it ?
Seems to me the ONLY advantage Betfair have now is the "in-running" game where liquidity elsewhere is an issue - as for "straight" punting/laying then if you are succesful in the long term then you need to review your activity on here
I've worked out that he would need to be placing bets of £14,245 !!!! a time to utilise his £1000 PC allowance over 250 bets.
How many are too concerned about that?
How many are too concerned about that?
amazed that the Betfair "brains" couldn't find a more subtle way to increase profits as the "hornets nest" will be stirred EVERY Wednesday for certain :)
A good thread, even if it is unlikely someone will be staking that much it still highlights how easy it is to pay PC by luck. Backing 50/1 shots seems the best example as you only need 6+ winners and with a relatively low liability. Like you say it's even worse for varying stakes. An extreme example is 248 or more £2 bets and then 2 £10k bets which win. A run of luck and increasing stakes at the right time and many could pay who shouldn't.
anybody who is accidentally caught in the net like this should have any pc charges rebated if they then subsequently go over 20% for the lifetime, which they probably would do . will betfair implement a rebate system ?
OK..... "the best example"
The 50/1 punter who wins 6 times in 250 bets.
If he hasn't used his 1000 allowance...he needs to be staking...wait for it....£25,000 a bet before he pays any PC. :-)
He will have won £1.4 m before he pays 1 penny in PC.
The 50/1 punter who wins 6 times in 250 bets.
If he hasn't used his 1000 allowance...he needs to be staking...wait for it....£25,000 a bet before he pays any PC. :-)
He will have won £1.4 m before he pays 1 penny in PC.
John your spot on ... They all come on here moaning re PC .... PC is only small .. and losers will never have to pay .. but the moaners they wish they were paying PC .... That would make em a Winners ...Bit like Gov tax re Million airs yes they have to pay .. and guess what to live in this Lovely country .. they pay ........ end of ........
OH forgot MR Alan Keyte With his odds on certs ... he dont have to worry about PC ......
Zipper, you're wrong re losers will never have to pay. My account has been at a loss for a longer period of time than it's been in profit. I paid a few weeks ago and now I'm well clear, and who knows next year I could be at a loss again.
Okuma ... when your playing in £1k or £3k bets per race .. yes it can happen .. but over a period of time it all evens out ......... Do you remember when punters had to pay 9 % on all winning bets to the Government .. Plenty of Pros packed the game in ...
Johnny The Guesser 23 Oct 15:42
OK..... "the best example"
The 50/1 punter who wins 6 times in 250 bets.
If he hasn't used his 1000 allowance...he needs to be staking...wait for it....£25,000 a bet before he pays any PC.
He will have won £1.4 m before he pays 1 penny in PC.
Johnny , even if you are technically correct here , we know that this couldn't happen in real . If someone were to bet with those stakes , they wouldn't be on 5 % commission.
Someone on 3 % commission winning 8 times in 250 bets would need to stake just a little more than £ 45 to be liable to PC.
Someone on 3 % commission staking £ 20 each time would only need to get 11 winners in 250 bets to be liable.
OK..... "the best example"
The 50/1 punter who wins 6 times in 250 bets.
If he hasn't used his 1000 allowance...he needs to be staking...wait for it....£25,000 a bet before he pays any PC.
He will have won £1.4 m before he pays 1 penny in PC.
Johnny , even if you are technically correct here , we know that this couldn't happen in real . If someone were to bet with those stakes , they wouldn't be on 5 % commission.
Someone on 3 % commission winning 8 times in 250 bets would need to stake just a little more than £ 45 to be liable to PC.
Someone on 3 % commission staking £ 20 each time would only need to get 11 winners in 250 bets to be liable.
re betting at 50/1, if you play by Johnnies rules you actually need seven wins, not six. If you had exactly six wins and no prior profit then one of them would qualify as a 'big' win of more than 50% of profit. [Strictly in terms of the rules all six wins would be exempt, but I'm sure BF only intended to exempt one.] So Joe needs 7 or more winners, still a sizable 26% probability. If Joe had £1000 allowance then he would need stakes of either £111, or £55, or less (depending on whether it was 7, 8, or more wins) to exceed the allowance. Not that unlikely at all.
But all that is moot, because I invented Joe Punter and I can tell you that, prior to the PC being introduced, Joe made £10,000 in profit, paid £1,000 in implied commission, and had his £1000 'allowance' swallowed up, thus effectively disposing of both the 'allowance' and the 'big win'. How did a break-even punter reach a 10% implied comm rate pre-2008? Well, firstly it's quite easy to do that by luck alone, but more importantly, anybody who is a break-even-after-commission punter in 2008/2009 would likely have been a very profitable punter prior to that.
But all that is moot, because I invented Joe Punter and I can tell you that, prior to the PC being introduced, Joe made £10,000 in profit, paid £1,000 in implied commission, and had his £1000 'allowance' swallowed up, thus effectively disposing of both the 'allowance' and the 'big win'. How did a break-even punter reach a 10% implied comm rate pre-2008? Well, firstly it's quite easy to do that by luck alone, but more importantly, anybody who is a break-even-after-commission punter in 2008/2009 would likely have been a very profitable punter prior to that.
when will bf update everyones premium charge portal for this commencing week ??
will it be able to access 2moz (mon)???
will it be able to access 2moz (mon)???
May I ask - How much does BF have to increase its PC before you decide to find pastures new?
You all can see the commission paid v. commission generated means current PC payers will pay more and many more new PC payers will be created
They obviously think they can do this and still keep 'market share', but there must be a breaking point soon
You all can see the commission paid v. commission generated means current PC payers will pay more and many more new PC payers will be created
They obviously think they can do this and still keep 'market share', but there must be a breaking point soon
zipper 23 Oct 15:40
Tightfist need not worry about PC ........
Well you cowardly Slimeball, I see you're having cheap shots at me on threads that I've never even been on. Can you sink any lower, my poison letter pal? And you say you were a RED BERET !!! Shame on them for having you in their ranks, you mangy old fox.
Of course I won't worry about the PC... In 2008, if I had laid ALL the naps boys to win £10 at BSP I would have won £6040 BEFORE 5% comm and made a NET PROFIT of only £1410. What's the 20% PC when I've already paid... I'll leave it for you to work it out, pea-brain.
I give you figures that can be verified, you try to regain some credibilty from the mathematically challenged by giving flat earth statistics.
zipper 07 Sep 2008 17:41
Tiger they had 14 winners ALL under 2/1 ... I did suggest not to play under 2/1 ( thats the ones they may land ) and nowt over 5/1 .. rember .. zip its a fine line but very profitable. hope this helps you .
TameTheTiger 07 Sep 2008 17:50
Ok Thanks.
If I narrow them down any more I'll have none left ! Premio Loco was over 2's on here. I layed it x7 yesterday.
zipper 07 Sep 2008 17:55
Tiger just for you .. here are yesterdays naps
Premio Loco ......7 naps ... 2/1 f
Captain Ramius...2 naps...,15/8 jf
Ehawin.............3 naps.....6/4f
Ehaara.............2 naps.....2/1f
So there you are All under 2/1 ....
zipper 07 Sep 2008 17:57
You layed the best horse in the race 7 times...... well what can i say.......OUCH
TameTheTiger 07 Sep 2008 17:59
OK Thanks again. It's 2/1 track price I go by then,roughly 5/2 here.And 5/1 track price,so maybe 11/2-6/1 here.
zipper 07 Sep 2008 18:01
Yep.
Doommeister 21 Nov 2008 00:30
Don't go laying the Nap Boys willy-nilly - You need to make a system from what's available... Personally & because of this, I'm raking it in...
zipper 21 Nov 2008 12:34
Doommeister .. I agree willy nilly dont work.. Methods .. patterns ..whos who does.
TameTheTiger 21 Nov 2008 17:36
Doommeister, bottom 25 not duplicated top 10 any odds ?
zipper 21 Nov 2008 18:01
Tiger ...... Slow down .. Tell em Nowt .. this forum goes world wide for gods sake ...
2008 naps table again
Lay less than 6.00 BSP to win £10 -£740 GROSS -£2990 comm NET LOSS -£3730
Lay less than 3.00 BSP to win £10 +£2000 GROSS -£1280 comm NET PROFIT +£720
Lay btween 3.OO and 6.00 BSP (work it out yourself)
The Meister and the Tiger, both doomed to naps extinction, they won't be worrying about the PC...
From the above, forumites might be wondering just what you're up to...
Are you giving them bad advice so that you get better prices???
Are you just on here to boast about how good you are, how you know more about the form than other punters, bookies and napsters (I see your nap is an odds on Stoute nag, no PC worries, hey!) ???
Are you full scale aftertiming crazy fantasist????!
Another final question... Why do I continue to argue with a Sick Mind???
Tightfist need not worry about PC ........
Well you cowardly Slimeball, I see you're having cheap shots at me on threads that I've never even been on. Can you sink any lower, my poison letter pal? And you say you were a RED BERET !!! Shame on them for having you in their ranks, you mangy old fox.
Of course I won't worry about the PC... In 2008, if I had laid ALL the naps boys to win £10 at BSP I would have won £6040 BEFORE 5% comm and made a NET PROFIT of only £1410. What's the 20% PC when I've already paid... I'll leave it for you to work it out, pea-brain.
I give you figures that can be verified, you try to regain some credibilty from the mathematically challenged by giving flat earth statistics.
zipper 07 Sep 2008 17:41
Tiger they had 14 winners ALL under 2/1 ... I did suggest not to play under 2/1 ( thats the ones they may land ) and nowt over 5/1 .. rember .. zip its a fine line but very profitable. hope this helps you .
TameTheTiger 07 Sep 2008 17:50
Ok Thanks.
If I narrow them down any more I'll have none left ! Premio Loco was over 2's on here. I layed it x7 yesterday.
zipper 07 Sep 2008 17:55
Tiger just for you .. here are yesterdays naps
Premio Loco ......7 naps ... 2/1 f
Captain Ramius...2 naps...,15/8 jf
Ehawin.............3 naps.....6/4f
Ehaara.............2 naps.....2/1f
So there you are All under 2/1 ....
zipper 07 Sep 2008 17:57
You layed the best horse in the race 7 times...... well what can i say.......OUCH
TameTheTiger 07 Sep 2008 17:59
OK Thanks again. It's 2/1 track price I go by then,roughly 5/2 here.And 5/1 track price,so maybe 11/2-6/1 here.
zipper 07 Sep 2008 18:01
Yep.
Doommeister 21 Nov 2008 00:30
Don't go laying the Nap Boys willy-nilly - You need to make a system from what's available... Personally & because of this, I'm raking it in...
zipper 21 Nov 2008 12:34
Doommeister .. I agree willy nilly dont work.. Methods .. patterns ..whos who does.
TameTheTiger 21 Nov 2008 17:36
Doommeister, bottom 25 not duplicated top 10 any odds ?
zipper 21 Nov 2008 18:01
Tiger ...... Slow down .. Tell em Nowt .. this forum goes world wide for gods sake ...
2008 naps table again
Lay less than 6.00 BSP to win £10 -£740 GROSS -£2990 comm NET LOSS -£3730
Lay less than 3.00 BSP to win £10 +£2000 GROSS -£1280 comm NET PROFIT +£720
Lay btween 3.OO and 6.00 BSP (work it out yourself)
The Meister and the Tiger, both doomed to naps extinction, they won't be worrying about the PC...
From the above, forumites might be wondering just what you're up to...
Are you giving them bad advice so that you get better prices???
Are you just on here to boast about how good you are, how you know more about the form than other punters, bookies and napsters (I see your nap is an odds on Stoute nag, no PC worries, hey!) ???
Are you full scale aftertiming crazy fantasist????!
Another final question... Why do I continue to argue with a Sick Mind???
^^^ Thread killer post! Back to the topic, Betfair talk as if people's comm paid/ gross profits percentage remains relatively constant. That may well be true of the bot operators whom the PC was originally aimed at, but it is certainly not true of the genuine punter with no edge at all. A graph of such a punter's comm/profit % will be jumping all over the place. A single win can easily take his lifetime percentage from 80% to 15%, so it is sheer nonsense to talk about such a person as some sort of intrinsic PC payer.
A very good thead, explains it well. When you reach PC status you must be a churner that grinds it out on here. All sure thing men( the green out team) will be hit with a 20% surcharge if they incur no losses for that week.
Thinking that makes green out a less inviting way to play on here.
Thinking that makes green out a less inviting way to play on here.
Also if I get this right, a spot player who makes only 3 winning bets a week on here (no losers) would be liable for a 20% charge on his winnings if he is on PC status.
Makes this strategy impossible now.
Makes this strategy impossible now.
ie: punter wins 1000 on week and pays betfair 5% or 50
losses on week are nil
Commision 50 divided by 2 = 25 + implied (in this case 0 )
So total profit of 950 which means punter is only 2.6% of the commission Betfair wants generated for the week
Surcharge then would be another 17.4% or 165 on winnings.
So total winnings on 1000 gain would be 785.
losses on week are nil
Commision 50 divided by 2 = 25 + implied (in this case 0 )
So total profit of 950 which means punter is only 2.6% of the commission Betfair wants generated for the week
Surcharge then would be another 17.4% or 165 on winnings.
So total winnings on 1000 gain would be 785.
* this example only applies to a lifetime history of no losses
It wouldn't matter if people could pay PC by chance if they got it refunded when they went on to lose or they got some sort of commission discount from future bets. But the fact they dont is what's wrong with it, I guess there would be too many loopholes.
The initial post is on an important subject but the numbers are false. If we are talking average Joe, let's say he bets 2.00 when the true odds are 2.00. Average Joe isn't going to stumble on a 5 tick edge by accident, and if he does, he's not an average Joe by definition, IMO.
In fact, its probably more "realistic" to say every time he bets 2.00 the odds are 2.01 and every time he lays 2.00 the odds are 1.995, mid of the spread.
In fact, its probably more "realistic" to say every time he bets 2.00 the odds are 2.01 and every time he lays 2.00 the odds are 1.995, mid of the spread.
but the original poster just constructed an example of a punter who did have an edge which was exactly equal to commission - on that premise, his numbers are all correct
he called the punter joe, which you appear to have read as "average joe" and then assumed that he was betting at random with no edge, which was not what the example is about
he called the punter joe, which you appear to have read as "average joe" and then assumed that he was betting at random with no edge, which was not what the example is about
I accept that - but that doesn't befit "the odds you will pay PC by chance" since you don't get an edge, however small, by chance.
If you are a high odds layer, the odds that you will pay PC can easily be 80%+.
If your sole strategy involves backing 1.01 laying 100+, PC can increase volatility to the extent where it no longer makes sense to bet at all.
If your sole strategy involves backing 1.01 laying 100+, PC can increase volatility to the extent where it no longer makes sense to bet at all.
Treble, it doesn't make a lot of difference if the punter has no edge at all. Backing 1.01 shots, such a punter has a 55% chance of accidentally falling below the magic 20% comm rate after 250 markets (Joe had 58% chance). I didn't choose a no-edge punter because I wasn't sure how to describe him in PC terms. If Joe is a '100% commission payer' then a punter with no edge is an 'infinity% commission payer'. How depressing is that!
By the way, certain 1.01 backers are performing a service. Let's say that there is a month to go in the Premier League and Chelsea are way ahead on points, only a miracle could stop them winning, the bookies have paid out already. Perhaps Chelsea should be 1.005 to win but in fact on Betfair they are 1.01 to back, 1.02 to lay.
The people wanting to lay Chelsea at 1.01 are not fools, they are just punters who backed Chelsea earlier at 3/1 and want to take their profit so they can get a bet on another event. The people backing Chelsea now at 1.01 are performing an important service for Betfair. They themselves presumably have excess funds that they can afford to tie up for a month, but they are freeing up money for other people, which can then be used for betting.
The 1.01 backers are tying up a lot of money for very little return, while betfair earns interest on their money. And then charges them commission. And then charges them PC. (Unless the miracle happens of course, then they lose everything.)
If I wanted to earn 1% interest on my money with a small but significant chance of losing it all, I'd put it in the bank! Seriously, what I'm trying to say is that there already isn't much incentive to back at 1.01, especially in long-term markets, so why introduce a PC which is particularly unfair at these sort of odds?
The people wanting to lay Chelsea at 1.01 are not fools, they are just punters who backed Chelsea earlier at 3/1 and want to take their profit so they can get a bet on another event. The people backing Chelsea now at 1.01 are performing an important service for Betfair. They themselves presumably have excess funds that they can afford to tie up for a month, but they are freeing up money for other people, which can then be used for betting.
The 1.01 backers are tying up a lot of money for very little return, while betfair earns interest on their money. And then charges them commission. And then charges them PC. (Unless the miracle happens of course, then they lose everything.)
If I wanted to earn 1% interest on my money with a small but significant chance of losing it all, I'd put it in the bank! Seriously, what I'm trying to say is that there already isn't much incentive to back at 1.01, especially in long-term markets, so why introduce a PC which is particularly unfair at these sort of odds?
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539