General Betting
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
11 Nov 09
13:59
Joined:
Date Joined:
28 Sep 08
Why is the PC Charge not against competition law?
Surely the PC Charge is against the Competition law because surely they are abusing theier place iin the market place by have 80+% of the market, for any serious bettors/traders they isn;t really anywhere else to go?
This may of been asked beofre but i dont know
Surely the PC Charge is against the Competition law because surely they are abusing theier place iin the market place by have 80+% of the market, for any serious bettors/traders they isn;t really anywhere else to go?
This may of been asked beofre but i dont know
Show More
the pc taken is enough to hire a big lawyer team to defend it
BF = Microsoft and they will get done......................eventually
Perfect scenario would be they have to pay it all back :-)
Abuse of a dominant market position (Chapter II / Article 82 prohibition)
Both UK and EC competition law prohibit businesses with significant market shares unfairly exploiting their strong market positions.
Consequences of breach
Contravention of Article 82 or Chapter II can have serious consequences for a company:
firms engaged in activities which breach these provisions can face fines of up to 10% of group global turnover;
conduct in breach of Article 82 or Chapter II can be stopped by court injunction;
firms in breach of Article 82 or Chapter II also leave themselves exposed to actions from third parties who can show they have suffered loss as a result of the anti-competitive behaviour; and
breach of Chapter II can result in individuals being disqualified from being a company director.
Type of behaviour caught
To be in a position of dominance, a business must have the ability to act independently of its customers, competitors and consumers. Establishing if a company is dominant requires a complex assessment of a number of elements but, as a general rule, if a business has a 50% market share there is a presumption that it is dominant. However, dominance has been found to exist where market share is as low as 40%.
Article 82 requires dominance in a substantial part of the European Union, but there is no requirement under Chapter II that a dominant position must be held in a substantial part of the UK, meaning that, in theory at least, dominance could be considered to exist in a fairly small area of the UK.
However, having a dominant position does not in itself breach competition law. It is the abuse of that position that is prohibited. Examples of behaviour that could amount to an abuse by a business of its dominant position include:
imposing unfair trading terms, such as exclusivity;
excessive, predatory or discriminatory pricing;
refusal to supply or provide access to essential facilities; and
tying (i.e. stipulating that a buyer wishing to purchase one product must also purchase all or some of his requirements for a second product).
Both UK and EC competition law prohibit businesses with significant market shares unfairly exploiting their strong market positions.
Consequences of breach
Contravention of Article 82 or Chapter II can have serious consequences for a company:
firms engaged in activities which breach these provisions can face fines of up to 10% of group global turnover;
conduct in breach of Article 82 or Chapter II can be stopped by court injunction;
firms in breach of Article 82 or Chapter II also leave themselves exposed to actions from third parties who can show they have suffered loss as a result of the anti-competitive behaviour; and
breach of Chapter II can result in individuals being disqualified from being a company director.
Type of behaviour caught
To be in a position of dominance, a business must have the ability to act independently of its customers, competitors and consumers. Establishing if a company is dominant requires a complex assessment of a number of elements but, as a general rule, if a business has a 50% market share there is a presumption that it is dominant. However, dominance has been found to exist where market share is as low as 40%.
Article 82 requires dominance in a substantial part of the European Union, but there is no requirement under Chapter II that a dominant position must be held in a substantial part of the UK, meaning that, in theory at least, dominance could be considered to exist in a fairly small area of the UK.
However, having a dominant position does not in itself breach competition law. It is the abuse of that position that is prohibited. Examples of behaviour that could amount to an abuse by a business of its dominant position include:
imposing unfair trading terms, such as exclusivity;
excessive, predatory or discriminatory pricing;
refusal to supply or provide access to essential facilities; and
tying (i.e. stipulating that a buyer wishing to purchase one product must also purchase all or some of his requirements for a second product).
The official line is they now have a bookmaker's license and so are in competition with bookmakers.
The official line is they have a bookmaker's license and so are in competition with bookmakers.
I am fairly sure that the consistent profits made here are down to systematic techniques. Those techniques might not be classed as gambling and as such I would much rather pay the PC than face income tax and possibly NI.
Let's not take this to the European Court please chaps.
Let's not take this to the European Court please chaps.
I would be very interested to see what would happen if it was fully challenged yes they have a bookmakers license but surely there could be a valid case because they have no direct liability on markets etc. like bookmakers do.
Personally i pay very little PC and for me there is very little point in changing because of the small liquity on other sites, but for the bigger player out there 20% is a large amount and because of the low liquity have no choice but to pay or find another job.
Personally i pay very little PC and for me there is very little point in changing because of the small liquity on other sites, but for the bigger player out there 20% is a large amount and because of the low liquity have no choice but to pay or find another job.
Alex the old wrinkled retainer 11 Nov 15:48
I am fairly sure that the consistent profits made here are down to systematic techniques. Those techniques might not be classed as gambling and as such I would much rather pay the PC than face income tax and possibly NI.
That may well be very true but for the normal person making a decent living off this may not really have a technique at the end of the day trading or other methods are STILL gambling regardless of you views, traders gamble on the market moving in the right way for them
I am fairly sure that the consistent profits made here are down to systematic techniques. Those techniques might not be classed as gambling and as such I would much rather pay the PC than face income tax and possibly NI.
That may well be very true but for the normal person making a decent living off this may not really have a technique at the end of the day trading or other methods are STILL gambling regardless of you views, traders gamble on the market moving in the right way for them
One or the other. Life would get very difficult with the PC and Tax and NI. However one needs to adapt no matter how the ground rules change.
Alex
I agree it may not be worth drawing attention to winning gamblers but it would not matter a hoot to HMRC if 'Dodgys' thread went to any court - if they think winning gamblers should be taxed, they will impose it regardless.
I agree it may not be worth drawing attention to winning gamblers but it would not matter a hoot to HMRC if 'Dodgys' thread went to any court - if they think winning gamblers should be taxed, they will impose it regardless.
The problem with taxing gamblers is its one of those occupations where lap top will travel .
If they imposed a tax most Full timers would simply move abroad.
If they imposed a tax most Full timers would simply move abroad.
excessive, predatory or discriminatory pricing
The PC is none of these things. PC payers still pay the lowest commission rates so it can't be excessive unless everyone's commission is excessive. And it actually makes the pricing less discriminatory with PC payers benefitting the most.
Maybe you think is contravenes the law in some other way?
The PC is none of these things. PC payers still pay the lowest commission rates so it can't be excessive unless everyone's commission is excessive. And it actually makes the pricing less discriminatory with PC payers benefitting the most.
Maybe you think is contravenes the law in some other way?
The bottom line is people only give a monkeys about it if they have to pay it as this thread highlights - 14 months after the charges was first introduced.
catfloppo 12 Nov 09:16
excessive, predatory or discriminatory pricing
The PC is none of these things. PC payers still pay the lowest commission rates so it can't be excessive unless everyone's commission is excessive. And it actually makes the pricing less discriminatory with PC payers benefitting the most.
Maybe you think is contravenes the law in some other way?
What a load of nonsense ! PC payers do not get a lower commission rate. They pay the same commission as everyone else , but a tax is added on their winnings by Betfair just because they are good at what they do.
It is also possible to have a losing year/account and still have had to pay PC during the year.
excessive, predatory or discriminatory pricing
The PC is none of these things. PC payers still pay the lowest commission rates so it can't be excessive unless everyone's commission is excessive. And it actually makes the pricing less discriminatory with PC payers benefitting the most.
Maybe you think is contravenes the law in some other way?
What a load of nonsense ! PC payers do not get a lower commission rate. They pay the same commission as everyone else , but a tax is added on their winnings by Betfair just because they are good at what they do.
It is also possible to have a losing year/account and still have had to pay PC during the year.
I paid 50.4% of my gross profit in commission last week, Eddie. Did any PC payers pay that much?
No they did not , but that is only because they had a better strike rate than you last week. Why should they be taxed by Betfair only because they are better than you ?
Make your mind up, Eddie, you said in the previous post that PC payers pay "the same commission as everyone else". Now you say they pay less because they are better?
I am also intrigued as to why you think someone with a high strike rate is better than me? What at exactly?
I am also intrigued as to why you think someone with a high strike rate is better than me? What at exactly?
Come on... don't act stupid just because you don't like that someone are better than you. You know that everyone pays commission under the same rules on the markets they are active in.
It's just that those who are to good have to pay a tax to Betfair only because they are to good.
And about your last point there , if someone with a higher strike rate isn't better than you , does that mean you aren't better than those on here who is long term losers ?
It's just that those who are to good have to pay a tax to Betfair only because they are to good.
And about your last point there , if someone with a higher strike rate isn't better than you , does that mean you aren't better than those on here who is long term losers ?
Ok Eddie. Suppose, as is likely, you have a higher strike rate than me yet I make more money than you overall. Which one of us is 'better'?
strike rate means sod all - it's cash that counts
To be honest the clause which relates to 'treating all customers similarly/in a fair way' is the one which PC may breach...
I may not have he exact wording but simply penalising customers for being too good, or winning too efficiently may qualify.
Dont forget that Premium Charge is payable by people even winning very small (eg £50 per day) if they win consistently...yet people winning far more dont pay it... how can this be 'treating customers equally' ?
I may not have he exact wording but simply penalising customers for being too good, or winning too efficiently may qualify.
Dont forget that Premium Charge is payable by people even winning very small (eg £50 per day) if they win consistently...yet people winning far more dont pay it... how can this be 'treating customers equally' ?
They gave an answer to this question on forum chat.
Betfair Customer Services 10 Sep 18:14
[i]I wrote earlier today raising questions as to the legality of these new charges under the terms of the Unfair Terms of Consumer contract Regulations. Further to that question I would also raise the following point:
Betfair Customer Services 10 Sep 18:14
[i]I wrote earlier today raising questions as to the legality of these new charges under the terms of the Unfair Terms of Consumer contract Regulations. Further to that question I would also raise the following point:
'Charging different prices to different customers where there is no difference in what is being supplied.'
Despite the above answer from Bf.... surely that is exactly what is happening....
Despite the above answer from Bf.... surely that is exactly what is happening....
student, OAPS, u18s etc...
there is actually just one charging structure that applies to everyone and people already paid different prices with the sliding commission scale.
there is actually just one charging structure that applies to everyone and people already paid different prices with the sliding commission scale.
clyde.... a 'volume discount' for higher levels of business is normal practice.
From a customer point of view I dont know how PC equates to this..
From a customer point of view I dont know how PC equates to this..
If they did have to stop the PC because they were found to be charging people differently for the same service, they may just increase normal charges for everyone. Or ban PC payers but I think that would be bad for them.
catfloppo , I would say that a guy with a 10 k bank making 20 k a year is better than a guy with a 100 k bank making 30 k a year. Do you disagree ?
Ultimately yes, the guy making 30k is making more. I guess you are assuming that the guy with only 10k could make more than 30k if he had a 100k in his bank but that is not a reasonable assumption.
Are you going to answer mine now?
Ok Eddie. Suppose, as is likely, you have a higher strike rate than me yet I make more money than you overall. Which one of us is 'better'?
Are you going to answer mine now?
Ok Eddie. Suppose, as is likely, you have a higher strike rate than me yet I make more money than you overall. Which one of us is 'better'?
Ok , so we disagree on who's the better , but I'm pretty sure that most people would agree with me that the 10 k guy is better.
I also thought I answered your question with my reply or was your question about you and me ?
I also thought I answered your question with my reply or was your question about you and me ?
Well, I guess they might do but they would have no reasonable way of justifying it.
No, you didn't answer the question. Person A has a high strike rate and pays pc, person B has a lower strike rate and doesn't pay pc. Person B makes more money overall than person A. Who is 'better'? Assume, if you like, they both have the same size bank.
No, you didn't answer the question. Person A has a high strike rate and pays pc, person B has a lower strike rate and doesn't pay pc. Person B makes more money overall than person A. Who is 'better'? Assume, if you like, they both have the same size bank.
If they work from the same bank size , of course B is the better.
catfloppo 12 Nov 10:03
I paid 50.4% of my gross profit in commission last week, Eddie. Did any PC payers pay that much?
Eddie the eagle 12 Nov 10:17
No they did not , but that is only because they had a better strike rate than you last week. Why should they be taxed by Betfair only because they are better than you ?
??
I paid 50.4% of my gross profit in commission last week, Eddie. Did any PC payers pay that much?
Eddie the eagle 12 Nov 10:17
No they did not , but that is only because they had a better strike rate than you last week. Why should they be taxed by Betfair only because they are better than you ?
??
Well , aren't you clever....
I'll refrase my question so that it doesn't hurt your feelings :
No they did not , but that is only because they had a better strike rate than you last week. Why should they be taxed by Betfair only because they have a better strike rate than you ?
I'll refrase my question so that it doesn't hurt your feelings :
No they did not , but that is only because they had a better strike rate than you last week. Why should they be taxed by Betfair only because they have a better strike rate than you ?
catfloppo 12 Nov 11:17
Ok Eddie. Suppose, as is likely, you have a higher strike rate than me yet I make more money than you overall. Which one of us is 'better'?
I don't think you can give an objective answer to that question. It depends on yourself and your own objectives I would say.
Strike rate taken in isolation is pretty meaningless for me. PC avoidance strategies mean increasing your activity and lowering your strike rate (due to using very low positive expectancy strategies) are a good thing.
Ultimately, the only thing that matters is how much you make. The only relevant factors to consider are the amount you use to make that profit, the volatility in your account and the costs and time/effort involved.
Coming back to Catfloppo's post, if a certain PC payer makes £5000 NET (after PC) in a week, and a non-PC payer makes £6000 NET (after paying 50% of GP in commission), I would "guess" the PC payer's result is preferable. I think more information is needed to know for sure. For instance, someone paying an average of 50% of GP in commission, may still be profitable every week.
Generally though, a PC payers account will show much lower volatility than a non PC payers account, which is obviously preferable from a risk/reward perspective. PC payers get relatively large rewards for taking (seemingly) small risks. This is now actively discouraged, and a more aggressive style of betting/trading is rewarded with lower PC.
Ok Eddie. Suppose, as is likely, you have a higher strike rate than me yet I make more money than you overall. Which one of us is 'better'?
I don't think you can give an objective answer to that question. It depends on yourself and your own objectives I would say.
Strike rate taken in isolation is pretty meaningless for me. PC avoidance strategies mean increasing your activity and lowering your strike rate (due to using very low positive expectancy strategies) are a good thing.
Ultimately, the only thing that matters is how much you make. The only relevant factors to consider are the amount you use to make that profit, the volatility in your account and the costs and time/effort involved.
Coming back to Catfloppo's post, if a certain PC payer makes £5000 NET (after PC) in a week, and a non-PC payer makes £6000 NET (after paying 50% of GP in commission), I would "guess" the PC payer's result is preferable. I think more information is needed to know for sure. For instance, someone paying an average of 50% of GP in commission, may still be profitable every week.
Generally though, a PC payers account will show much lower volatility than a non PC payers account, which is obviously preferable from a risk/reward perspective. PC payers get relatively large rewards for taking (seemingly) small risks. This is now actively discouraged, and a more aggressive style of betting/trading is rewarded with lower PC.
Eddie the eagle...
By the way, has the lifetime PC sorted out that weird problem you had where you were paying PC before even having recovered from a big drawdown, due to weeks dropping of the 60 week period?
By the way, has the lifetime PC sorted out that weird problem you had where you were paying PC before even having recovered from a big drawdown, due to weeks dropping of the 60 week period?
the investor , the problem wasn't weeks dropping off. It was that I earlier had a big win that was exempt from PC beacuse the win was more than 50 % of the last 60 weeks gross profit. That became a problem when I won some more because the big win was no longer more than 50 % of last 60 weeks profit and therefor not exempt anymore.
That lead to me having to pay PC for winning weeks even if I had lost the same amount or more the prior week(s).
No longer a problem because I've been " lucky" to lose enough now to be over 20 % commission generated again.
That lead to me having to pay PC for winning weeks even if I had lost the same amount or more the prior week(s).
No longer a problem because I've been " lucky" to lose enough now to be over 20 % commission generated again.
Eddie the eagle 12 Nov 18:06
Well , aren't you clever....
I'll refrase my question so that it doesn't hurt your feelings :
No they did not , but that is only because they had a better strike rate than you last week. Why should they be taxed by Betfair only because they have a better strike rate than you ?
Because they are paying less commission to start with and the pc partially addresses this.
Well , aren't you clever....
I'll refrase my question so that it doesn't hurt your feelings :
No they did not , but that is only because they had a better strike rate than you last week. Why should they be taxed by Betfair only because they have a better strike rate than you ?
Because they are paying less commission to start with and the pc partially addresses this.
catfloppo , there must be long term winners on here that pay a higher % of their gross profit in commission than you do.
Why shouldn't you be taxed by Betfair because you pay less in commission than they do ?
Why shouldn't you be taxed by Betfair because you pay less in commission than they do ?
catfloppo is one of these idiots who, for some bizarre reason, thinks that some people being charged an extra random tax, simply by dint of having a good run, even though every penny goes straight to betfair's coffers, somehow benefits everyone else on the site. Quite how, he (or for that matter anyone else), has yet to explain....
(wait for the pc defenders to come on shouting "trader" "insider" "hooverer" "bot" "fast pictures" "courtsiders" "trap bets" etc..., speaking of which, where is Feck?)
(wait for the pc defenders to come on shouting "trader" "insider" "hooverer" "bot" "fast pictures" "courtsiders" "trap bets" etc..., speaking of which, where is Feck?)
No reason. I would occasionally pay pc if the threshold was set at 30%, regularly if it was 40%. Betfair set it at 20% and it hasn't affected me yet. No doubt they thought very carefully about this.
catfloppo is one of these idiots who, for some bizarre reason, thinks that some people being charged an extra random tax, simply by dint of having a good run, even though every penny goes straight to betfair's coffers, somehow benefits everyone else on the site. Quite how, he (or for that matter anyone else), has yet to explain....
(wait for the pc defenders to come on shouting "trader" "insider" "hooverer" "bot" "fast pictures" "courtsiders" "trap bets" etc..., speaking of which, where is Feck?)
Turtle,
The pc isn't random. It isn't even extra any more - it's been part of the commission structure for over a year now. No one pays it by dint of having a good run, you need to be in long term profit to qualify.
(wait for the pc defenders to come on shouting "trader" "insider" "hooverer" "bot" "fast pictures" "courtsiders" "trap bets" etc..., speaking of which, where is Feck?)
Turtle,
The pc isn't random. It isn't even extra any more - it's been part of the commission structure for over a year now. No one pays it by dint of having a good run, you need to be in long term profit to qualify.
But it does disturb the natural risk/reward balance.
Okay, so lets say a newcomer comes along, makes 10k, gets clobbered for pc, then loses 10k.
Does he get the pc back?
Does he get the pc back?
" No one pays it by dint of having a good run"
Utterly laughable comment.
Utterly laughable comment.
turtleshead 12 Nov 19:31
Okay, so lets say a newcomer comes along, makes 10k, gets clobbered for pc, then loses 10k.
Does he get the pc back?
Yep, he gets a discount on future PC payments. Ok, the real answer is no!
NO..is the answer Turtle... you can win £5k one week ..pay 1k in PC and next week lose 5k and gwet nothing back..
The fact is its illegal by competition law but nobody has challenged it in court so ...on we go...
The fact is its illegal by competition law but nobody has challenged it in court so ...on we go...
The only people likely to challenge are premium charge payers.
These guys need BF more than BF need them and will be deterred by the obvious threat of account closure.
These guys need BF more than BF need them and will be deterred by the obvious threat of account closure.
shaun
These guys need BF more than BF need them and will be deterred by the obvious threat of account closure
Presently, you are correct - but the future looks like a downward spiral ...... their 'monopoly' has lasted a long time but will definitely not last forever
I also cannot see a sustained, prolonged challenge occurring - only market forces and BF's thoughts on future profitability will be the main factors in the future of the current PC charge
These guys need BF more than BF need them and will be deterred by the obvious threat of account closure
Presently, you are correct - but the future looks like a downward spiral ...... their 'monopoly' has lasted a long time but will definitely not last forever
I also cannot see a sustained, prolonged challenge occurring - only market forces and BF's thoughts on future profitability will be the main factors in the future of the current PC charge
If anyone was going to challenege BF it would be Old Beardy ,but even his plans have fallen by the wayside.
the best thing betfair could do, and suppose is their ultimate aim, be it 2 years or 5 years, is to cease all exchange activity, there are now bigger than hills and laddy put together online, they must surely be enviously looking at the take from deposits which their rivals keep, compared to their own, and to this aim are actively trying to move customers from exchange betting to their other activities. The betfair exchanges days are on countdown definately
So long as it remains a profitable activity I don't see why they would discontinue it.
It may be that they will make it harder for the winners. The winners are market-makers, so BF need them to keep the show on the road to some extent.
It may be that they will make it harder for the winners. The winners are market-makers, so BF need them to keep the show on the road to some extent.
They could become the main market makers themselves similar to what they did on exchange games. It probably wouldn't make much difference to most punters. Even if a lot left they may still make more if they take a bigger share.
Nobody has answered the headline question to convince me otherwise...
Moon Lightthats not how business operates, the excahange is profitable, but not as profitable as betfair casino, or games pro ratio to deposits, betfair ware all out to correct this, and as soon as they think the games, the tote, the casino, laying the bets themselves, advantages outwigh the exchange they will cease the exchange, or continue to turn the screw, like I posted five years the betfair exchange will be a thing of the past.
thats why feck is complety stupid with his rants about traders and scalpers
traders and scalpers and any amount of other way punters choose to use the exchange,that is what makes the betfair exchange, he may see himself as being more useful to the exchange model than these people, HE IS COMPLETLY WRONG, all are equally beneficial,when, because he is a good forn judge he can only get 7/1 the 7/1 shot instead of the 10/1 he gets now, his tune will change
traders and scalpers and any amount of other way punters choose to use the exchange,that is what makes the betfair exchange, he may see himself as being more useful to the exchange model than these people, HE IS COMPLETLY WRONG, all are equally beneficial,when, because he is a good forn judge he can only get 7/1 the 7/1 shot instead of the 10/1 he gets now, his tune will change
I think the question was answered by the fact that betfair are a registered bookmaker, and have no monopoly in the bookmaking industry - far from it, and the PC in the long run should help other operations thrive.
The statement from bf cs shuold be signed Don Vito. . . .
thats why feck is complety stupid with his rants about traders and scalpers
traders and scalpers and any amount of other way punters choose to use the exchange,that is what makes the betfair exchange, he may see himself as being more useful to the exchange model than these people, HE IS COMPLETLY WRONG, all are equally beneficial,when, because he is a good forn judge he can only get 7/1 the 7/1 shot instead of the 10/1 he gets now, his tune will change
What a stupid post. I'm getting 10/1 about 7/1 shots becausae of the activities of penny pinchers? Yet the penny pinchers tell me their activities make it fairer for the mugs because the odds reach their true level quicker. Which is it?
traders and scalpers and any amount of other way punters choose to use the exchange,that is what makes the betfair exchange, he may see himself as being more useful to the exchange model than these people, HE IS COMPLETLY WRONG, all are equally beneficial,when, because he is a good forn judge he can only get 7/1 the 7/1 shot instead of the 10/1 he gets now, his tune will change
What a stupid post. I'm getting 10/1 about 7/1 shots becausae of the activities of penny pinchers? Yet the penny pinchers tell me their activities make it fairer for the mugs because the odds reach their true level quicker. Which is it?
Treble underscore
If the GP tax went back to turnover tax, then you would see them 'unregister' as a bookmaker quite rapidly
I agree that the charge is against competiton law , but the 'wigs' would make a case last for years - so who's financially capable of challenging it?
If the GP tax went back to turnover tax, then you would see them 'unregister' as a bookmaker quite rapidly
I agree that the charge is against competiton law , but the 'wigs' would make a case last for years - so who's financially capable of challenging it?
Wouldn't be surprised to see a legal challenge in a few years time.
By then the potential gains would be worth the costs involved.
By then the potential gains would be worth the costs involved.
I don't think there's any sensible and reasoned argument for suggesting they have a monopoly in their area been posted yet. I don't think it would take an amazing team of lawyers to argue that they face competition from plenty of companies, be they p1nn sports, asian bookies, UK books, Aussie books, and so on and so forth.
I don't think "if x happened they would not be bookmakers any more" is relevant in this example, and would indeed be laughed out of a court of law.
I don't think "if x happened they would not be bookmakers any more" is relevant in this example, and would indeed be laughed out of a court of law.
Betfair have advertised many times that they offer a new and different product for punters.
I believe that Betfair have argued succsesfully that they weren't bookmakers by
claiming that they were only middlemen.
To suggest that Betfair are the same as William Hill is ridiculous.
I believe that Betfair have argued succsesfully that they weren't bookmakers by
claiming that they were only middlemen.
To suggest that Betfair are the same as William Hill is ridiculous.
They don't need to be "the same" to be competiting in a non-monopolistic situation - do you accept that?
JML 16 Nov 17:41
Betfair have advertised many times that they offer a new and different product for punters.
I believe that Betfair have argued succsesfully that they weren't bookmakers by
claiming that they were only middlemen.
Betfair don't argue that they aren't a bookmaker, they openly admit that they are...
I said it before in another thread:
If you see Betfair as a betting exchange, you could say they have a monopoly
If you see Betfair as a bookmaker, you can't say they have a monopoly
It's just playing with words really. Sure Betfair have competition from the major bookies, but many of it's customers only use betting exchanges. If Betfair dissappeared tomorrow, my business would go to another betting exchange. If betting exchanges were made illegal tomorrow, i would no longer be able to profit from gambling to anywhere close to the level i do now.
I would guess that a much larger percentage of customers are in profit on the betting exchanges than with traditional bookies, true? Before I joined Betfair, I had only ever placed one bet with a bookmaker. It was a free bet offer, and the reason I didn't take up gambling before, is simply that I couldn't see a way to make money.
If you imagine a town where there are only 6 restaurants, five of them are Italian and one is Asian. If someone wants to eat Asian food, they can't go to the Italian restaurants. Some people complain that the Asian restaurant is abusing it's position as the only Asian restaurant in town by charging more than twice as much as Asian restaurants in neighbouring towns. The restaurant owners respond by saying there is plenty of competition from the five other restaurants in town.
Betfair have advertised many times that they offer a new and different product for punters.
I believe that Betfair have argued succsesfully that they weren't bookmakers by
claiming that they were only middlemen.
Betfair don't argue that they aren't a bookmaker, they openly admit that they are...
I said it before in another thread:
If you see Betfair as a betting exchange, you could say they have a monopoly
If you see Betfair as a bookmaker, you can't say they have a monopoly
It's just playing with words really. Sure Betfair have competition from the major bookies, but many of it's customers only use betting exchanges. If Betfair dissappeared tomorrow, my business would go to another betting exchange. If betting exchanges were made illegal tomorrow, i would no longer be able to profit from gambling to anywhere close to the level i do now.
I would guess that a much larger percentage of customers are in profit on the betting exchanges than with traditional bookies, true? Before I joined Betfair, I had only ever placed one bet with a bookmaker. It was a free bet offer, and the reason I didn't take up gambling before, is simply that I couldn't see a way to make money.
If you imagine a town where there are only 6 restaurants, five of them are Italian and one is Asian. If someone wants to eat Asian food, they can't go to the Italian restaurants. Some people complain that the Asian restaurant is abusing it's position as the only Asian restaurant in town by charging more than twice as much as Asian restaurants in neighbouring towns. The restaurant owners respond by saying there is plenty of competition from the five other restaurants in town.
And remember that none of the big bookmakers that have tried to set up their own exchange have been able to gain significant market share.
Betfair don't argue that they aren't a bookmaker, they openly admit that they are..
When betting tax was 9% Betfair's arguement was, although they held a bookmakers licence,
they were not bookmakers.
This possibly happened before you joined Betfair.
No point arguing whether or not Betfair have a monopoly.
Some believe they do,others believe they don't.
What would the odds be on the eve of a legal judgement?
When betting tax was 9% Betfair's arguement was, although they held a bookmakers licence,
they were not bookmakers.
This possibly happened before you joined Betfair.
No point arguing whether or not Betfair have a monopoly.
Some believe they do,others believe they don't.
What would the odds be on the eve of a legal judgement?
Sure Betfair have competition from the major bookies, but many of it's customers only use betting exchanges.
I think that's an unsubstantiated statement which is untrue. Many of it's PC paying customers may well only use betting exchanges, although I doubt all of them do. Plenty of others (the losers and the non-PC paying winners) are very unlikely to use betfair - any mug is accomodated far better at the traditional books, and is welcome to bet there in whatever volume they please once they are identified as such. I'd love to know what % of accounts solely use betfair - I'd imagine it to be in single figures % wise, and low single figures at that.
If Betfair dissappeared tomorrow, my business would go to another betting exchange. If betting exchanges were made illegal tomorrow, i would no longer be able to profit from gambling to anywhere close to the level i do now.
Maybe - you don't know until that happens though really, do you? This motivation also applies to very few people - they might enjoy the motivation that they MIGHT make a profit, (I should say illusion in most cases), but their "betting income" isn't relevant, it doesn't exist (aside from in a negative form!)
I would guess that a much larger percentage of customers are in profit on the betting exchanges than with traditional bookies, true?
I wouldn't assume that to be true quite so easily. There was a survey conducted that I saw recently and the responders had to announce whether they had an account with a book, how they ranked the book (1-5), and whether they were restricted. Some books had 30-40% of the respondents restricted! Now granted, this survey is more likely to have been answered by people with an axe to grind. Once you are in profit, you may well get your account shut down by the traditional books. Here, if your profit is deemed to be "too fast", you don't get shut down, but get hit by PC. Remember the % of profitable accounts at any one time is low and only 0.71% made it pay to a reasonable level at the last known quoted figures.
All the thousands of matched bettors at MSE.com are almost certainly holding book accounts with profit and betfair accounts with losses. The majority of all the arbers are the same. The traders (or at least the good ones) will be holding +ve betfair accounts, so its whether the arbers outnumber the traders or vice versa (for a start).
A lot, i suppose, depends on what brought you to betfair. If it was that you can't get on at any traditional books, then you already had a whole wealth of bookmaker accounts in profit. If it was the trading or in running aspect of things, then you are loyal to betfair since you need the liquidity it provides more than anything. If it was their clever marketing using the PC payers money, you probably do your dough here quicker than anywhere else, and, although the profit illusion may keep you going, you'll probably in the fullness of time end up back with the traditional books, or skint.
The sad truth is, when the PC goes up to 25%, 30%, people still won't be leaving. Temporarily to purple, maybe, but that's all.
I think that's an unsubstantiated statement which is untrue. Many of it's PC paying customers may well only use betting exchanges, although I doubt all of them do. Plenty of others (the losers and the non-PC paying winners) are very unlikely to use betfair - any mug is accomodated far better at the traditional books, and is welcome to bet there in whatever volume they please once they are identified as such. I'd love to know what % of accounts solely use betfair - I'd imagine it to be in single figures % wise, and low single figures at that.
If Betfair dissappeared tomorrow, my business would go to another betting exchange. If betting exchanges were made illegal tomorrow, i would no longer be able to profit from gambling to anywhere close to the level i do now.
Maybe - you don't know until that happens though really, do you? This motivation also applies to very few people - they might enjoy the motivation that they MIGHT make a profit, (I should say illusion in most cases), but their "betting income" isn't relevant, it doesn't exist (aside from in a negative form!)
I would guess that a much larger percentage of customers are in profit on the betting exchanges than with traditional bookies, true?
I wouldn't assume that to be true quite so easily. There was a survey conducted that I saw recently and the responders had to announce whether they had an account with a book, how they ranked the book (1-5), and whether they were restricted. Some books had 30-40% of the respondents restricted! Now granted, this survey is more likely to have been answered by people with an axe to grind. Once you are in profit, you may well get your account shut down by the traditional books. Here, if your profit is deemed to be "too fast", you don't get shut down, but get hit by PC. Remember the % of profitable accounts at any one time is low and only 0.71% made it pay to a reasonable level at the last known quoted figures.
All the thousands of matched bettors at MSE.com are almost certainly holding book accounts with profit and betfair accounts with losses. The majority of all the arbers are the same. The traders (or at least the good ones) will be holding +ve betfair accounts, so its whether the arbers outnumber the traders or vice versa (for a start).
A lot, i suppose, depends on what brought you to betfair. If it was that you can't get on at any traditional books, then you already had a whole wealth of bookmaker accounts in profit. If it was the trading or in running aspect of things, then you are loyal to betfair since you need the liquidity it provides more than anything. If it was their clever marketing using the PC payers money, you probably do your dough here quicker than anywhere else, and, although the profit illusion may keep you going, you'll probably in the fullness of time end up back with the traditional books, or skint.
The sad truth is, when the PC goes up to 25%, 30%, people still won't be leaving. Temporarily to purple, maybe, but that's all.
What would the odds be on the eve of a legal judgement?
interesting question. Whoever decided to bring them to task would presumably be a betfair millionaire with nothing better to spend his/her money on (I base this on the fact that I can't imagine any scrupulous legal practictioners giving anyone a 50% chance of winning a case, so it would have to be pure bloody-mindedness that made them go to court), thus raising the profile of themself and the thousands of successful gamblers who win money so fast that betfair have created a new charge to effectively tax them.
That may well have a knock on effect in taxation terms. Personally, I'd rather have PC and take my chances that way! The level of sympathy any court would have to winning gamblers, its worth remembering, could well be extremely limited. Let's face it, people don't like it in everyday life (or they think you are lying).
interesting question. Whoever decided to bring them to task would presumably be a betfair millionaire with nothing better to spend his/her money on (I base this on the fact that I can't imagine any scrupulous legal practictioners giving anyone a 50% chance of winning a case, so it would have to be pure bloody-mindedness that made them go to court), thus raising the profile of themself and the thousands of successful gamblers who win money so fast that betfair have created a new charge to effectively tax them.
That may well have a knock on effect in taxation terms. Personally, I'd rather have PC and take my chances that way! The level of sympathy any court would have to winning gamblers, its worth remembering, could well be extremely limited. Let's face it, people don't like it in everyday life (or they think you are lying).
That may well have a knock on effect in taxation terms. Personally, I'd rather have PC and take my chances that way! The level of sympathy any court would have to winning gamblers, its worth remembering, could well be extremely limited. Let's face it, people don't like it in everyday life (or they think you are lying).
I'm no law expert , but I believe and certainly hope UK judges base their decisions on the law rather than sympathy !
A group of big PC payers would have to get together and hire a law firm on the classic "no cure no pay" lawsuit.
I'm no law expert , but I believe and certainly hope UK judges base their decisions on the law rather than sympathy !
A group of big PC payers would have to get together and hire a law firm on the classic "no cure no pay" lawsuit.
Right - so quote the actual relevant part of the law here. If you don't think this would be a subjective test case I'd listen to the precedents that have existed within the gambling industry, quite happily.
TU , I know little about the law , nor do I live in the UK or have English as my first language so I really can't go into a debate about this.
All I say is that if this is to get to the courts , it can probably only happen if a PC payer contacts a law firm to look into it and if they say a lawsuit may have a chance , a group of big PC payers would have to come together and hire that law firm on a "no cure no pay" basis.
All I say is that if this is to get to the courts , it can probably only happen if a PC payer contacts a law firm to look into it and if they say a lawsuit may have a chance , a group of big PC payers would have to come together and hire that law firm on a "no cure no pay" basis.
Sure. I don't see any law firm thinking it has a 50% chance of success though. Just a subjective opinion on a subjective subject. Firms don't take cases on a "no win no fee" basis (I assume that's what you mean) unless they are pretty damn sure they will win.
Wouldn't that depend on how much they made if they won the case ?
If plenty of the biggest PC payers came together , the reward could be a very decent amount based on a 50/50 split.
If plenty of the biggest PC payers came together , the reward could be a very decent amount based on a 50/50 split.
Treble_Underscore 17 Nov 08:12
If Betfair disappeared tomorrow, my business would go to another betting exchange. If betting exchanges were made illegal tomorrow, i would no longer be able to profit from gambling to anywhere close to the level i do now.
Maybe - you don't know until that happens though really, do you? This motivation also applies to very few people - they might enjoy the motivation that they MIGHT make a profit, (I should say illusion in most cases), but their "betting income" isn't relevant, it doesn't exist (aside from in a negative form!)
Your post is more accurate than mine, as a lot of it was just guesswork based on my own activity, but I'm probably not a typical betfair customer.
Regarding the above part of your post though, I can be fairly certain that I wouldn't be able to profit like I do without betting exchanges. Even if I did, I would be doing so in ways I don't currently know about. If I was able to do that, I would already be doing it!
If Betfair disappeared tomorrow, my business would go to another betting exchange. If betting exchanges were made illegal tomorrow, i would no longer be able to profit from gambling to anywhere close to the level i do now.
Maybe - you don't know until that happens though really, do you? This motivation also applies to very few people - they might enjoy the motivation that they MIGHT make a profit, (I should say illusion in most cases), but their "betting income" isn't relevant, it doesn't exist (aside from in a negative form!)
Your post is more accurate than mine, as a lot of it was just guesswork based on my own activity, but I'm probably not a typical betfair customer.
Regarding the above part of your post though, I can be fairly certain that I wouldn't be able to profit like I do without betting exchanges. Even if I did, I would be doing so in ways I don't currently know about. If I was able to do that, I would already be doing it!
why would they need a 50/50 chance to win ?
that's the same as saying u can only bet on evens or u don't have a chance. :D
that's the same as saying u can only bet on evens or u don't have a chance. :D
no, its not. Its just a phrase I picked up in my (admittedly limited) knowledge of the law.
It depends of course how you discount potential costs on losing (and bad press/publicity) vs reward if successful. I have no doubt the chance of winning and the amount likely to be won will be strongly correlated to the potential costs of a case. Such a theoretical case would only be taken on by a serious legal firm - who by definition won't want to lose. If such a firm sees a 25% chance of victory returning 1 million in fees - they won't just cost that as a 250k Value. I'm certain they'd take a 60% chance of a case worth a million rather than 25% of a case worth 3 million, whether (from an expectation point of view) that is the "correct" play or not.
It depends of course how you discount potential costs on losing (and bad press/publicity) vs reward if successful. I have no doubt the chance of winning and the amount likely to be won will be strongly correlated to the potential costs of a case. Such a theoretical case would only be taken on by a serious legal firm - who by definition won't want to lose. If such a firm sees a 25% chance of victory returning 1 million in fees - they won't just cost that as a 250k Value. I'm certain they'd take a 60% chance of a case worth a million rather than 25% of a case worth 3 million, whether (from an expectation point of view) that is the "correct" play or not.
There would be no need for a no win-no fee case.
The customers invoved could easily afford any legal action.
The case is not even that complicated.
Betfair would claim they are not a monopoly because they compete against bookmakers.
The PC payers would claim that they use Betfair in ways unique to betting exchanges
and that Betfair have a 95+% market share.
Befair would have the choice of refunding this group and continue charging PC.
Losing any legal action would result in Betfair having to refund everyone,legal fees,
bad publicity,no futher PC,and the possibility of a large fine.
The customers invoved could easily afford any legal action.
The case is not even that complicated.
Betfair would claim they are not a monopoly because they compete against bookmakers.
The PC payers would claim that they use Betfair in ways unique to betting exchanges
and that Betfair have a 95+% market share.
Befair would have the choice of refunding this group and continue charging PC.
Losing any legal action would result in Betfair having to refund everyone,legal fees,
bad publicity,no futher PC,and the possibility of a large fine.
I agree with JML's summary there.
Forgetting for a moment how much BF would have to lose if they were successfully challenged, I can't see how they could successfully argue their way around being deemed a monopoly. Saying they are in competition with bookmakers is a total red herring. Say BT had a monopoly on all phone communication in the UK, they would be competing with other forms of communication, post, email, courier pigeon etc on some level. Betfair are really about as different from traditional bookmakers as telephony is from postal services is my view on the matter.
Forgetting for a moment how much BF would have to lose if they were successfully challenged, I can't see how they could successfully argue their way around being deemed a monopoly. Saying they are in competition with bookmakers is a total red herring. Say BT had a monopoly on all phone communication in the UK, they would be competing with other forms of communication, post, email, courier pigeon etc on some level. Betfair are really about as different from traditional bookmakers as telephony is from postal services is my view on the matter.
Last two posts are spot on.
Would love to see the challenge.
Would love to see the challenge.
As I said when it first came out, it is unequiovically an abuse of their monopoly.
They don't charge winning poker players as they do not have any power in the poker trade.
They are filthy, vile, vulgar, bullys.
The founders should be ashamed to their core, I've helped run a small family business for years, and each and everyone of us can stand taller than the founders of this place. Before I was in awe of Black and co, now I think they have shown their true colours.
They don't charge winning poker players as they do not have any power in the poker trade.
They are filthy, vile, vulgar, bullys.
The founders should be ashamed to their core, I've helped run a small family business for years, and each and everyone of us can stand taller than the founders of this place. Before I was in awe of Black and co, now I think they have shown their true colours.
You should be aware that a lot of these biggest players that you are theorising would enter into such a court case with bottomless pockets, the people who the PC was actually supposed to be hitting, actually are not being hit by it. That's what makes them the top players. BF bring out a new rule/charge hike etc, and they think of a way round it.
One immediately comes to mind who would have, by rights, paid 5k+ per week in PC. He told me personally he paid 5k week one, 5k week two, and zero since. He thought outside the box, looked at the rules, and got around it.
I find it difficult to frame the people who WOULD be paying PC once they knew the rules. There is, after all, in the long term a relatively simple solution. What you need is a strategy that returns under 5% ROI. If it loses (as long as it doesn't lose big numbers) it comes off your PC bill. If it makes 4% it alleviates PC AND makes you more money. If it makes 0-1%, all the better, especially if it can be automated. The only people who would continue paying PC are probably the totally risk averse traders - and some extremely unlucky arbers. A position taker wouldn't have a problem adapting to that strategy. Those strategies are out there - if you can beat the machine in the first place, you can beat the PC. IMO.
One immediately comes to mind who would have, by rights, paid 5k+ per week in PC. He told me personally he paid 5k week one, 5k week two, and zero since. He thought outside the box, looked at the rules, and got around it.
I find it difficult to frame the people who WOULD be paying PC once they knew the rules. There is, after all, in the long term a relatively simple solution. What you need is a strategy that returns under 5% ROI. If it loses (as long as it doesn't lose big numbers) it comes off your PC bill. If it makes 4% it alleviates PC AND makes you more money. If it makes 0-1%, all the better, especially if it can be automated. The only people who would continue paying PC are probably the totally risk averse traders - and some extremely unlucky arbers. A position taker wouldn't have a problem adapting to that strategy. Those strategies are out there - if you can beat the machine in the first place, you can beat the PC. IMO.
and then one week, they will pay 30k in PC because the arbs didn' t go too well
The only issue with that strategy for manual punters is time, otherwise if it made profit or broke even we would do it regardless of the pc.
Treble...prize for clueless post of the week... Well done...
The point is the headline and NO.... people affected cannot get round it...
The point is the headline and NO.... people affected cannot get round it...
Oh... sorry...if I am winning 50% on stakes I should lose 45% of that to avoid Prem charge... good idea ;)
treble underscore really does have no idea.
its people like him arguing for betfair that make me really mad.
the fact is theres no justification for it, and its just even more annoying when people who aren't affected by it and clearly don't understand its significance argue WITH betfair.
its people like him arguing for betfair that make me really mad.
the fact is theres no justification for it, and its just even more annoying when people who aren't affected by it and clearly don't understand its significance argue WITH betfair.
HMMMMMMM 18 Nov 13:51
and then one week, they will pay 30k in PC because the arbs didn' t go too well
He doesn't do it via arbing. He thought of new strategies, with different goals in mind (i.e. very large volume, very low yield). PC moved the goalposts and he reacted accordingly.
Okuma 18 Nov 19:32
The only issue with that strategy for manual punters is time, otherwise if it made profit or broke even we would do it regardless of the pc.
Right - granted. So its a matter of valuing your time versus what you would pay in PC. So work out what you earn per hour, and go from there. If its worth spending 100% of your time on your "main" earner, do so. I know you don't get paid for posting on or reading the forum - but everyone still finds time for that!
againstthecrowd 18 Nov 20:42
Treble...prize for clueless post of the week... Well done...
The point is the headline and NO.... people affected cannot get round it...
Yes, they can. When I was at 20.xx% last year i thought around it until now, I have no worries. But thanks - I'm so clueless I am a big winner on here and not a PC payer. Go figure.
againstthecrowd 18 Nov 20:43
Oh... sorry...if I am winning 50% on stakes I should lose 45% of that to avoid Prem charge... good idea ;)
Read again. Figure out what I am actually saying. If you can manage to interpret it I will tell you its very useful advice, that some sensible players are already following and have been following for some time. If you aren't a one-dimensional trader, totally allergic to absorbing any traditional risk, you WILL reduce or eliminate your PC concerns. If all you have is fast pics, or one or two trading strategies, don't worry, you won't be around for long enough to worry about PC in the future, since you'll be outmoded and surpassed by others.
oldbigead 18 Nov 20:51
treble underscore really does have no idea.
its people like him arguing for betfair that make me really mad.
the fact is theres no justification for it, and its just even more annoying when people who aren't affected by it and clearly don't understand its significance argue WITH betfair.
Right - but if you read what I have said - what I am REALLY saying is "ITS HERE - GET OVER IT - THINK OF A WAY ROUND IT RATHER THAN JUST WHINGING ON THE FORUM ABOUT IT". I'm not defending betfair, I'm just rubbishing the pie-in-the-sky bull$hit that's gone on on this thread about this theoretical group of white knights who will save the day for all the (comparatively piddly) other PC payers on here. Look at the strokes the bookies have gotten away with for the last 50-60 years, and tell me this is even in the top 10! I don't think so.
Last post on this thread. But thanks for the abuse, remember why i stopped wasting time on the forum in the first place, muppets.
and then one week, they will pay 30k in PC because the arbs didn' t go too well
He doesn't do it via arbing. He thought of new strategies, with different goals in mind (i.e. very large volume, very low yield). PC moved the goalposts and he reacted accordingly.
Okuma 18 Nov 19:32
The only issue with that strategy for manual punters is time, otherwise if it made profit or broke even we would do it regardless of the pc.
Right - granted. So its a matter of valuing your time versus what you would pay in PC. So work out what you earn per hour, and go from there. If its worth spending 100% of your time on your "main" earner, do so. I know you don't get paid for posting on or reading the forum - but everyone still finds time for that!
againstthecrowd 18 Nov 20:42
Treble...prize for clueless post of the week... Well done...
The point is the headline and NO.... people affected cannot get round it...
Yes, they can. When I was at 20.xx% last year i thought around it until now, I have no worries. But thanks - I'm so clueless I am a big winner on here and not a PC payer. Go figure.
againstthecrowd 18 Nov 20:43
Oh... sorry...if I am winning 50% on stakes I should lose 45% of that to avoid Prem charge... good idea ;)
Read again. Figure out what I am actually saying. If you can manage to interpret it I will tell you its very useful advice, that some sensible players are already following and have been following for some time. If you aren't a one-dimensional trader, totally allergic to absorbing any traditional risk, you WILL reduce or eliminate your PC concerns. If all you have is fast pics, or one or two trading strategies, don't worry, you won't be around for long enough to worry about PC in the future, since you'll be outmoded and surpassed by others.
oldbigead 18 Nov 20:51
treble underscore really does have no idea.
its people like him arguing for betfair that make me really mad.
the fact is theres no justification for it, and its just even more annoying when people who aren't affected by it and clearly don't understand its significance argue WITH betfair.
Right - but if you read what I have said - what I am REALLY saying is "ITS HERE - GET OVER IT - THINK OF A WAY ROUND IT RATHER THAN JUST WHINGING ON THE FORUM ABOUT IT". I'm not defending betfair, I'm just rubbishing the pie-in-the-sky bull$hit that's gone on on this thread about this theoretical group of white knights who will save the day for all the (comparatively piddly) other PC payers on here. Look at the strokes the bookies have gotten away with for the last 50-60 years, and tell me this is even in the top 10! I don't think so.
Last post on this thread. But thanks for the abuse, remember why i stopped wasting time on the forum in the first place, muppets.
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539