Forums

General Betting

Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
Froggitt
04 Dec 09 14:43
Joined:
Date Joined: 25 Jul 03
| Topic/replies: 11,637 | Blogger: Froggitt's blog
Mine is. At least two of the figures in the portal this week I am certain are incorrect.

It is, of course, easy to calculate the figures yourself.

All the figures for the premium charge are explained on the website. You can find more information about these figures by clicking on:

About Us Betfair Charges 6) Premium Charges
Pause Switch to Standard View Is your PC calculation wrong?
Show More
Loading...
Report MANCHESTERSKYTRAIN December 4, 2009 2:58 PM GMT
depends on what you mean by wrong, ethically and morally then yes very wrong and discriminatory
Report Froggitt December 4, 2009 3:21 PM GMT
As well as that, the numbers are wrong.
Report Eddie the eagle December 4, 2009 3:50 PM GMT
Exactly which numbers are wrong ? Feel free to post them if you like and I'll go through them for you.
Report Eddie the eagle December 4, 2009 3:52 PM GMT
Just to add , I've never seen anything wrong with them , the moral thing apart. It usually is the account holder that doesn't fully understand the rules.
Report birch2 December 4, 2009 5:16 PM GMT
Eddie
In whose interests is the change from 60 weeks GP to lifetime GP?
Report Eddie the eagle December 4, 2009 5:22 PM GMT
I would think that was the only change that actually benefitted the customers.
Report birch2 December 4, 2009 5:25 PM GMT
care to give me your reasoning?
Report Eddie the eagle December 4, 2009 5:30 PM GMT
I would say it's obvious that it's a less chance of getting caught in the PC net when on a good run if you have your lifetime GP to offset it against rather than just a 60 week period.
Report birch2 December 4, 2009 5:41 PM GMT
OK - 2 questions
Are the vast majority of PC payers 'one off' winners or systematic long term winners?

If you opt for the latter, would any of them want lifetime GP taken into a PC calc, or 60 week GP?

Dont say - it all depends..................consider the majority
Report Eddie the eagle December 4, 2009 5:46 PM GMT
The latter and without a doubt would most benefit from lifetime GP.
Report birch2 December 4, 2009 5:56 PM GMT
Eddie are you speaking as a PC payer, cos all the ones I know have had their commission generated % reduced, and hence incur more of a charge
Report Eddie the eagle December 4, 2009 6:08 PM GMT
yES , i HAVE PAID MORE pc THAN MOST AND CAN ASSURE YOU i HATE THE CHARGE , BUT i REALLY CAN'T SEE HOW THE CHANGE TO LIFETIME CALCULATION CAN LOWER YOUR GENERATED COMMISSION.

Sorry for the CAPS.
Report birch2 December 4, 2009 6:15 PM GMT
OK Eddie - thanks for your responses, and apologies for hijacking your thread Froggit -
Report caleyjags December 5, 2009 8:56 AM GMT
I never paid premium charge with the 60 week thing. Now I'm paying with the lifetime thing.
Couple of weeks ago, lost £37+ yerty had generated comm of 63p. That can't be 3% ! I guess Betfair are **ing me, but then the whole PC is a fraud.
Report STEPTOES YARD December 5, 2009 9:02 AM GMT
Commission generated includes implied commish
Report Eddie the eagle December 5, 2009 9:11 AM GMT
caleyjags ,the calculations are correct if you had losses that week of approx £ 42 and winnings of approx £ 5.
Report Alex the old wrinkled retainer December 5, 2009 9:27 AM GMT
I can never bend my mind around why the basic commission/implied commission should be less than 3% of the GP. It always comes out at about 2.8%. How is that possible?
Report catfloppo December 5, 2009 9:29 AM GMT
MANCHESTERSKYTRAIN 04 Dec 15:58
depends on what you mean by wrong, ethically and morally then yes very wrong and discriminatory


So someone who makes money consistently from other peoples gambling losses considers a charge imposed on them for doing so to be morally and ethically wrong?
Report brentford December 5, 2009 9:32 AM GMT
I suppose it is in the sense that one is initially a level playing field,
the other opportunism via market position.
Report Eddie the eagle December 5, 2009 9:38 AM GMT
Alex , if you are on less than 3 % commission , the generated commission will always be lower than 3 % no matter how the week has been.
Report Alex the old wrinkled retainer December 5, 2009 10:04 AM GMT
Eddie the eagle 05 Dec 10:38
Alex , if you are on less than 3 % commission , the generated commission will always be lower than 3 % no matter how the week has been.



No I am not. I am between 4 and 5%. 5% and I figure the commission ought to be (5+3)/2 =4%.. 4% and it should be (4+3)/2 = 3.5%. I am somewhere between.

But it always comes at at about 2.8%. Do I have cause to query it, do you reckon?
Report Alex the old wrinkled retainer December 5, 2009 10:06 AM GMT
I do sometimes make 5p on a game where no commission is charged but that cannot amount to more than 50p a week. So that is not the answer.
Report Fergus December 5, 2009 11:12 AM GMT
Alex,

Presumably you're angling but if you have any genuine doubts, regardless of whether those doubts prove to be valid, then I would consider that you have reasonable cause to query the matter with Betfair.

However, on the assumption that the 2.8% figure you quoted represents your Commission Generated, that figure is entirely plausible.

Assume that:

A given customer is on a 5% commission rate

Weekly Wins = £1075

Weekly Losses = £75

Weekly Gross Profit = (1075-75) = £1000

Commission Paid = (0.05*1075) = £53.75

Implied Commission = (0.03*75) = £2.25

Commission Generated = (Commission Paid + Implied Commission)/2 = (53.75+2.25)/2 = £28

Therefore, for the above customer in the given week, commission generated as a percentage of gross profit equates to (28/1000)*100% = 2.8%.

For a customer on a 4% commission level, with a weekly gross profit of £1000, the following figures would equate to a commission generated as a percentage of gross profit of approximately 2.8%:

WW = £1228.57
WL = £228.57
GP = £1000
CP = (0.04*1228.57) = £49.14
IC = (0.03*228.57) = £6.86
CG = (49.14+6.86)/2 = £28
Report Lori December 5, 2009 11:15 AM GMT
BUT i REALLY CAN'T SEE HOW THE CHANGE TO LIFETIME CALCULATION CAN LOWER YOUR GENERATED COMMISSION.

They changed the % from approx 3.3% to 3% at the same time. The change to lifetime didn't do it, it was brought in alongside.

That's more aimed at birch than you, but I liked copy pasting the caps :D
Report Alex the old wrinkled retainer December 5, 2009 11:43 AM GMT
Fergus

I am not and was not fishing. My numbers are not too far adrift of your example. And thanks very much for your explanation. It is shocking that it should work out like that.
Report caleyjags December 5, 2009 11:44 AM GMT
Well at least I've only paid £12.94 Premium charge in total. My points have dropped from 1500 to 422 and still falling so I'm paying far less commission to BF these days. At the same time I've increased my betting on BD and joined WB X (paid them over £130 in genuine commission one week) so it's helping the competition from going bankrupt.
Report Alex the old wrinkled retainer December 5, 2009 11:47 AM GMT
I just look at the P&L for the week on each Monday. Ignore the Aussie stuff and regular as clockwork it comes out at about 18.5% of the net profit for the week.

It is scary.
Report Fergus December 5, 2009 12:03 PM GMT
My apologies for suggesting that you may have been fishing Alex.

Whilst I object to the premium charge, in fairness to Betfair, they have provided full details in relation to how the premium charge is calculated in the 'Betfair Charges' section. This can be accessed by clicking 'About Us' at the top of the Betfair screen (for the benefit of anyone reading this thread who wasn't previously aware of this).
Report Alex the old wrinkled retainer December 5, 2009 12:09 PM GMT
They have I agree. I guess that I have just have an overload of detailed calcs on anything that looks vaguely like a tax. But that is an issue I need to deal with in my head and many thanks for confirming that 2.8% could be right.

It is a strange life and what the head does.
Report MANCHESTERSKYTRAIN December 5, 2009 12:24 PM GMT
catfloppo 05 Dec 10:29


MANCHESTERSKYTRAIN 04 Dec 15:58
depends on what you mean by wrong, ethically and morally then yes very wrong and discriminatory

So someone who makes money consistently from other peoples gambling losses considers a charge imposed on them for doing so to be morally and ethically wrong?

YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
BECAUSE I COULD TAKE 20 TIMES AS MUCH OFF OTHER PUNTERS AND NOT PAY IT AT ALL.
THAT IS WHY IT IS WRONG AND DISCRIMINATORY(Sorry for shouting but i need to get this point across, this is the only reason i am against the premium charge)
Report catfloppo December 5, 2009 4:20 PM GMT
Shouting doesn't make you right, Manchester. Why do you think it is morally and ethically wrong for you to be charged for the service that you use to make money?
Report birch2 December 5, 2009 6:36 PM GMT
Fergus
the fact that they're applying a retrospective charge back over 9 years is OK then?

I dont mind rules when they start at a point in the future, their calc in 2008/9 applies to what i already have paid in 2002-2007!
Report MANCHESTERSKYTRAIN December 6, 2009 11:05 AM GMT
catfloppo 05 Dec 17:20


Shouting doesn't make you right, Manchester. Why do you think it is morally and ethically wrong for you to be charged for the service that you use to make money?

I have always been charged for the service, in fact paying between 4.5% and 5% commision, i believe means i have always paid at least 50% more than the average person, so i completely fail to see why an extra added charge should be levied for the sole reason of how efficient a persons betting might be, i think it is beyond belief tbh, i mean you could take a million a year out of the exchange and just pay 2% of your winnings, if i make a tenner they take £2 away, to be blunt its a fckg mess
Report catfloppo December 6, 2009 3:30 PM GMT
I paid 40.73% of my gross profit as commission last week. How much did you pay? Feel free to include pc.
Report Okuma December 6, 2009 4:28 PM GMT
I dont think it's really fair that someone could be a consistent winner for 5 years, makes £2m a year and pays 40% in charges and doesn't pay extra. Yet someone who could have been here for 2 years and been up and down but gets to 30k profit and dips below 20% gets collared.
Report catfloppo December 6, 2009 6:15 PM GMT
Why not? The person paying 40% pays both a higher percentage and a higher absolute amount.
Report Okuma December 6, 2009 7:04 PM GMT
The 40% guy is taking a lot more money out of the system and has been winning consistently for 5 years, so he's a lot more likely to continue winning. The other guy has been inconsistent so longer term his % charges may be well above 40%, and he's not taking anywhere near as much money out of the system. It's a no brainer who I'd charge extra.
Report catfloppo December 6, 2009 8:10 PM GMT
The 40% guy is taking a lot more money out of the system and has been winning consistently for 5 years, so he's a lot more likely to continue winning.

Not at all. Someone paying 40% commission has a smaller edge than someone paying 20 or less. Therefore he is less likely to continue winning.

The other guy has been inconsistent so longer term his % charges may be well above 40%, and he's not taking anywhere near as much money out of the system.

If he averages 40% he won't get charged pc anyway.

It's a no brainer who I'd charge extra.

Really? If you were running a betting exchange which customer would you rather have?
Report Okuma December 6, 2009 8:30 PM GMT
The 40% guy is taking a lot more money out of the system and has been winning consistently for 5 years, so he's a lot more likely to continue winning.

Not at all. Someone paying 40% commission has a smaller edge than someone paying 20 or less. Therefore he is less likely to continue winning.


It's not as straight forward as that imo. If I bet less and was more selective I would get better odds and be working with a bigger edge, if I bet more I work to a smaller edge.

The other guy has been inconsistent so longer term his % charges may be well above 40%, and he's not taking anywhere near as much money out of the system.

If he averages 40% he won't get charged pc anyway.


Its possible to have a good run followed by a poor run.

It's a no brainer who I'd charge extra.

Really? If you were running a betting exchange which customer would you rather have?


I dont think it's a case of which customer I would rather have, more like who I could charge more. 3% extra for the 40% guy brings in a lot more than if I charged the other guy 100%.
Report ante December 6, 2009 8:50 PM GMT
40% guy has other options and he would leave BF and BF would lose 800,000 in commission. Traders and fast pic players can't leave.
Report catfloppo December 6, 2009 8:53 PM GMT
The 40% already brings you more. Also, it more than covers the cost of the service you have to provide for him/her. Not so for anyone paying less than 20%.

I'll put it another way, which customer would you be most keen to hang onto?
Report Okuma December 6, 2009 9:27 PM GMT
ante, I hope you're correct but I'm not sure the losers would follow him to somewhere else because he has to pay a bit more of his £2m profit. I know a lot of people above 40% and losers aswell and they tell me they dont use other places because they cant get matched. If they tried to force it they may be cutting off their nose to spite their face, it may not be worth it for the sake of a few %. Other places have offered discounted commission before and betfair has increased charges before but the majority stay here.

catfloppo, you would want to keep the biggest player but as above, I'm not sure it would be in his best interest to leave instead of pay a small charge increase.
Report ante December 6, 2009 9:48 PM GMT
Why would BF take the risk? If they leave BF loses a lot, if they stay BF gains a little. With current PC payers the risk is almost non-existent.
Report catfloppo December 6, 2009 10:11 PM GMT
You're right there Okuma. But how much is a little? Presumably betfair think they have got it right (for now!).
Report turtleshead December 6, 2009 10:39 PM GMT
catfloppo, as you are always going on about how fair the pc is, could you answer this:

If your gas, electricity, and water providers suddenly decided to massively increase your bills because of your usage 6 years ago, would you consider that to be fair? After all, you are paying for a service provided, so presumably you would have no cause for complaint?
Report Okuma December 6, 2009 10:53 PM GMT
ante, They may take the risk to increase their profits because they dont make as much on turnover as a lot of other sites. It might not be worth it though, they will have to weigh it up. You're right the current situation is little risk and justified to a lot, but there are probably a few who are wrongly caught. I think it would have been better if they tried to tackle the root cause. Charged per trade like matchbox so traders paid more and gamblers less, looked at getting faster pics for everyone, and not offer markets where people have a massive inside advantage.

catfloppo, I'm not sure but even a very small % might make a difference. I hope they dont change much unless they reduce commission for some losing players.
Report catfloppo December 6, 2009 11:18 PM GMT
To be honest, turtle, I would probably be unhappy. But that would not mean it wasn't fair and it's not a particularly good analogy anyway.

In any case I don't think all aspects of the pc are fair, it is the principle I agree with. In some respects any change to the commission structure is unfair as bettors strategies are based upon it. When transaction and data charges were introduced for example, it must have rendered some automated programs entirely useless. Some people must have been very cross then, with some justification.

But anyone plying their trade on here must accept that it is an ever-changing environment, not just commission-wise, and those that survive will be those that adapt best.

God, I need to go to bed :p
Report turtleshead December 7, 2009 12:01 AM GMT
I'd say my analogy was a pretty good one to be fair, especially if your utility provider was a monopoly which you had no choice with (such as water). What I described is exactly what betfair have done retrospectively.

As for the change for transaction and data charges, I think any reasonable person would agree that by taking up large amounts of resources when submitting thousands of bet requests a second in the hope of getting one or two matched should make you liable to additional fees. I don't see how that can be compared in any way to the pc, which is arbitrary and discriminatory, among other things.
Report Mavis "Hacksaw" Handbag December 7, 2009 2:11 AM GMT
For how long have you worked for betfair, catfloppo?
Report catfloppo December 7, 2009 9:14 AM GMT
Very funny Mavis :D
Report catfloppo December 7, 2009 9:42 AM GMT
Tobe,

Well, neither of us are making money out of my water company and that invalidates the analogy completely imo.

The pc is neither arbitrary or discriminatory and the same reasonable person who can see the logic of charging for excessive api calls would certainly also be able to see that a minimum level of commission should be due from all accounts to ensure that every customer is at least paying their way.
Report catfloppo December 7, 2009 9:42 AM GMT
Apologies, that last post was for turtle.
Report ante December 7, 2009 10:43 AM GMT
Okuma
ante, They may take the risk to increase their profits because they dont make as much on turnover as a lot of other sites. It might not be worth it though, they will have to weigh it up. You're right the current situation is little risk and justified to a lot, but there are probably a few who are wrongly caught. I think it would have been better if they tried to tackle the root cause. Charged per trade like matchbox so traders paid more and gamblers less, looked at getting faster pics for everyone, and not offer markets where people have a massive inside advantage.

I completely agree with this but if BF made those changes there would be even more complaints than there is now from those negatively affected.
Report birch2 December 7, 2009 12:15 PM GMT
Turtlehead

As for the change for transaction and data charges, I think any reasonable person would agree that by taking up large amounts of resources when submitting thousands of bet requests a second in the hope of getting one or two matched should make you liable to additional fees. I don't see how that can be compared in any way to the pc, which is arbitrary and discriminatory, among other things.

Spot on ........................... they highlighted this as the main reason for the PC , but I'm suspicious they knew just where the PC was going back in Sept 2008 - the bad news is they aint finished yet
Report Eddie the eagle December 7, 2009 12:39 PM GMT
birch 2 , Betfair has never said that the PC was aimed at the bot users. Those paying transaction and data charges could , prior to the changes some weeks ago , in fact deduct those charges before PC was calculated.
Report MANCHESTERSKYTRAIN December 7, 2009 1:45 PM GMT
catfloppo 06 Dec 16:30


I paid 40.73% of my gross profit as commission last week. How much did you pay? Feel free to include pc

i really don't believe the likes of you you paid 40% of your gross profit as commission last week because you had lots of winners and losers and you betting to that level of efficienty in reaching your profits, i am much more careful and efficient than you and reach my profits (which incidently could be well less than yours) without occurring big loses, do you really believe this is wrong and such a crime that i don't get to keep all my profits after commision like you do, are you seriously saying just because i bet in a more efficient way i should be punished by an added charge that you don't have to pay ONLY because i haven't had as many losing bets as you in reaching my profit( i though this was the aim of betting ffs), you should work for betfair if you actually believe the sh1te you are spouting and can't see that it is unfair.
I don't mind paying the exact amount i am paying now as long as it is part of a general commission scheme with the same pricing structure for all, unfortunately this would mean me paying a base rate of around 14% in commission instead of the 4.7% i pay now, i could survive this no problem because i am already paying this but it would sink the likes of you , you wouldn't stand a chance of making a profit with those type of charges, but you very happy to see thw likes of me paying them every week , i wonder why, oh i know why a discriminatory and ethically wrong charge is fine and dandy as long as YOU are not affected personally, don't blame you loving the premium charge because if they ever decided to get the income they need with a FAIR pricing structure you would become just another loser.
Report ante December 7, 2009 1:57 PM GMT
What if they decided to get rid of unethical and unfair IR betting? Would you prefer that?
Report MANCHESTERSKYTRAIN December 7, 2009 1:59 PM GMT
ante 07 Dec 14:57


What if they decided to get rid of unethical and unfair IR betting? Would you prefer that

i don't agree its unfair and unethical because you have a choice to take part or not and i know you can win with all the disadvantages because i do every week, i don't have a choice about paying the pc charge do i?
Report ante December 7, 2009 2:01 PM GMT
Yes you do. You can bet with bookies, other exchanges, totes etc.
Report MANCHESTERSKYTRAIN December 7, 2009 2:16 PM GMT
i CHOOSE to with betfair, i CHOOSE to bet in running, nobodry is forced to do this it is by CHOICE, i DONT CHOOSE to pay the unfair premium charge that is levied discriminorily on efficient winnrers, i am FORCED to pay this when others using more of the sites resources and operating with advantages over me and taking more from the exchange than i could ever dream of are left to keep their profits, i will always bet here when there is no viable alternative and i don't mind paying the amount i pay i think its a fair deal i just want everyone else to be subject to the same pricing scheme not involving a discriminatory add on charge for certain types of winners, but this will never happen , just imagine betfair millionaires paying a base rate of 14% instead of 2% , that would end the whole concept of betfair, that is why they levy it at a chosen few in a discriminatory manner, like i said for anyone who doesn't pay its great so i don't blame you enjoying watching others being charged unfairly, just the fact that some seem to dense to aknowledge its unfair that amazes me
Report ante December 7, 2009 2:28 PM GMT
Just like you can't acknowledge that IR betting is unfair.

If you like fairness you should bet IR on purple. It's fair and moral since there are no mugs who don't know they're 1 furlong behind, only professionals.

If you're so good and efficient as you say you are you can CHOOSE to bet there and not pay the irritating PC.
Report MANCHESTERSKYTRAIN December 7, 2009 2:29 PM GMT
ffs
Report MANCHESTERSKYTRAIN December 7, 2009 2:35 PM GMT
There is no one betting IR over there i am too old to play with myself all day
Report ante December 7, 2009 2:44 PM GMT
I just watched IR betting of 3.40 at Wolves on purple. There were prices offered both on back and lay sides for almost all horses. There was just less liquidity because there are no mugs on purple.

To bring mugs they would need more marketing money. To get more marketing money they would need some sort of PC. It's a vicious circle...
Report birch2 December 7, 2009 3:34 PM GMT
Eddie

why do you continue to defend the undefensible ?

Are you Pythia in disguise?
Report birch2 December 7, 2009 3:54 PM GMT
Eddie

But the Data Request Charge only kicks in above 20 data requests in one second, so there is quite a high threshold before this charge applies. So our statement above is correct, because the customers affected by the premium charge on average use significantly more resources than our average customers.

Taken from a response when the first PC was implemented

So how many humans can put 20 requests in 1 sec - and who use the most resources? - So, who were they initially targeting?
Report catfloppo December 7, 2009 5:52 PM GMT
Hey Manchester, I am entitled to my opinion!

We have different strategies - you are more 'efficient' than me. You think that is a good thing and you are entitled to your opinion and I won't be rude to you if it differs from mine! The bottom line for me is the amount of money I make not the amount of losers I have or the amount of commission I pay. I believe it is entirely reasonable for betfair to amend their commission structure in order to ensure everyone pays a minimum amount of their profits back to them. It certainly isn't unfair, unethical or discriminatory.
Report turtleshead December 7, 2009 6:28 PM GMT
The pc most certainly is "arbitrary and discriminatory" as can clearly be seen by the following example:

Someone relatively new wins 20k one week, gets clobbered for pc, loses 20k the next week, ends up hugely in defecit as he doesn't get a penny back.

Someone else relatively new loses 20k one week, makes it back the next week, doesn't pay a single penny.

Case closed, I think :)
Report birch2 December 7, 2009 7:04 PM GMT
Eddie

To me, you are No1 on the defence of the PC

However, silence is golden
Report catfloppo December 7, 2009 7:28 PM GMT
birch2

I think it has been quite easily and inadvertently done by users of 3rd party api products viewing multiple markets with extremely high refresh rates.
Report catfloppo December 7, 2009 7:45 PM GMT
Case unclosed turtle :p

The PC is administered to a set of rules - the complete opposite of arbitrary.
The PC applies to everyone equally - the complete opposite of discriminatory.
Report birch2 December 7, 2009 7:58 PM GMT
catfappo

Yes I know it has, but in Sept 2008, I think they worked out the best formula to capture the best returns, and they will screw it to death, whilst the monopoly exists
Report turtleshead December 7, 2009 8:57 PM GMT
"The PC is administered to a set of rules - the complete opposite of arbitrary.
The PC applies to everyone equally - the complete opposite of discriminatory"

I think you need to get a new dictionary. The set of rules may be the same. But people are affected in an arbitrary and discriminatory manner such as in the very example I mentioned. Two people can place exactly the same bets, make exactly the same profit, have exactly the same strike rate, cost betfair exactly the same in resources, yet one gets clobbered, and the other doesn't, simply by dint of the order of the results.

How on earth can you claim this is not arbitrary and discriminatory ?:|
Report catfloppo December 7, 2009 9:27 PM GMT
Sorry but that just isn't what arbitrary means. The fact that there are a set of rules means it is not arbitrary. People are affected differently but it is not arbitrary.

And for it to be discriminatory a set of people would need to be treated differently and that's not the case. Everyone has to pay the pc if they meet the qualifying criteria.
Report turtleshead December 7, 2009 9:52 PM GMT
"Sorry but that just isn't what arbitrary means. The fact that there are a set of rules means it is not arbitrary. People are affected differently but it is not arbitrary"

Total and utter cobblers.

ARBITRARY

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=3789&dict=CALD

"based on chance rather than being planned or based on reason"

Perfectly accurate way of how it operates in the example I've given. It's certainly down to chance if you get hit or not, there is no reason or logic which could explain it.

"And for it to be discriminatory a set of people would need to be treated differently and that's not the case. Everyone has to pay the pc if they meet the qualifying criteria"

Yes, the set of people who are discriminated against are the ones who win and then lose, as opposed to those who lose and then win.

Case closed again :)
Report catfloppo December 7, 2009 11:06 PM GMT
But it is planned and it is based on reason. We have strayed amusingly from into an argument about what the words mean :) but from any given set of circumstances, after the rules are applied a consistent and predictable result is reached. It is not based on chance at all. The same set of circumstances would always yield the same result.

You wouldn't say that a speeding fine is discriminatory because it is only issued to people exceeding the speed limit. The speed limit applies to everyone the same. VAT doesn't discriminate against people who buy things. Income tax does not disciminate against people who have jobs. People who pay 40% tax aren't discriminated against because they have reached that level of earnings. The pc applies to everyone the same too. For any given set of circumstances the pc is calculated according to the rules no matter who the account holder is. That isn't discrimination.

You can close the case now :)
I'm exhausted...
Report turtleshead December 7, 2009 11:59 PM GMT
"But it is planned and it is based on reason. We have strayed amusingly from into an argument about what the words mean but from any given set of circumstances, after the rules are applied a consistent and predictable result is reached. It is not based on chance at all. The same set of circumstances would always yield the same result"

I get the feeling you are now just arguing for the sake of it. Two people place exactly the same bets. They achieve the same results from a p&l point of view, which is really all that matters given that we are talking about gambling. The cost to betfair for each person is identical. One gets clobbered, the other doesn't. Of course it is based on chance, unless either of the participants has any control over the outcome that he or she has wagered on (assumption is that neither does). By the generally accepted dictionary definition, one of them has been treated arbitrarily. Simple as that. There is nothing at all "planned" or "based on reason" about it, it is self evidently down to chance as to who pays nothing, and who pays a lot.

I simply don't accept the "following a rule" argument is a valid reason for the vastly differing treatment.

And finally, without sounding like too much of a know it all, another definition of "arbitrary" is "unfair" Are you now going to explain how the above example is "fair" ?

"You wouldn't say that a speeding fine is discriminatory because it is only issued to people exceeding the speed limit. The speed limit applies to everyone the same"

A pretty poor comparison, with all due respect. The speed limit certainly applies to everyone. However, not everyone who transgresses gets treated the same. (some will get a warning, some will get an on the spot fine, some will be taken to court etc).

So you could actually argue, that in certain cases, the punishment is applied in a discriminatory and arbitrary manner.

:)




. VAT doesn't discriminate against people who buy things. Income tax does not disciminate against people who have jobs. People who pay 40% tax aren't discriminated against because they have reached that level of earnings. The pc applies to everyone the same too. For any given set of circumstances the pc is calculated according to the rules no matter who the account holder is. That isn't discrimination.
Report turtleshead December 8, 2009 12:01 AM GMT
Oops, meant to delete the last paragraph.
Report catfloppo December 8, 2009 6:38 AM GMT
The variance in the calculations due to differing sets of circumstances is not the same thing as the charge being arbitrary.

As for discrimination, I give up. You just don't seem to know what the word means.
Report MANCHESTERSKYTRAIN December 8, 2009 10:59 AM GMT
Hey Manchester, I am entitled to my opinion!

We have different strategies - you are more 'efficient' than me. You think that is a good thing and you are entitled to your opinion and I won't be rude to you if it differs from mine! The bottom line for me is the amount of money I make not the amount of losers I have or the amount of commission I pay. I believe it is entirely reasonable for betfair to amend their commission structure in order to ensure everyone pays a minimum amount of their profits back to them. It certainly isn't unfair, unethical or discriminatory

we will have to agree to disagree, i didn't mean to suggest in any way that my betting is more profitable or better than yours was just pointing out that it is my type of betting that is unfairly (in my view)discriminated on for the purpose of premium charges, if i was you i would like the premium charge also because it would allow me to continue making a profit at the expense of the most efficient winning punters and continue to enjoy low rates of commission because of the likes of me paying extra, although i would like the pc in those circumstances i wouldn't be blinded to its unfairness to the chosen few who have whose right to keep their profits after commission has been sacrificed
Report john92 December 8, 2009 12:05 PM GMT
Paying Betfair for a "service" bears no relation whatsover to how much of your profits (percentage wise) you pay in commission. The only reason Betfair have linked the 2 is that those who are paying less profit/commission are those who are more likely to have no alternative to betfair, and are therefore more likely to put up with it.

An extra charge for services provided should be related to the activty of your account - opening a market, placing a bet, clicking refresh, cancelling a bet, making a withdrawl etc.

The cost to Betfair of matching a £10 bet, for example, costs the same regardless of who places it.
The only fair way to charge extra for services is flat commission rate, with extra charges based on site usage - number of bets placed, number of cancelled bets, even posting on the forum or emailing the helpdesk.

Person a pays 18% of profits - liable for pc
Person b pays 22% of profits - not liable.
Yet Betfair could have provided far more services to person b.

I have a background in accountancy, and if you are going down the road of charging extra for services and costs, then that is how I look at it.
Report john92 December 8, 2009 12:05 PM GMT
Paying Betfair for a "service" bears no relation whatsover to how much of your profits (percentage wise) you pay in commission. The only reason Betfair have linked the 2 is that those who are paying less profit/commission are those who are more likely to have no alternative to betfair, and are therefore more likely to put up with it.

An extra charge for services provided should be related to the activty of your account - opening a market, placing a bet, clicking refresh, cancelling a bet, making a withdrawl etc.

The cost to Betfair of matching a £10 bet, for example, costs the same regardless of who places it.
The only fair way to charge extra for services is flat commission rate, with extra charges based on site usage - number of bets placed, number of cancelled bets, even posting on the forum or emailing the helpdesk.

Person a pays 18% of profits - liable for pc
Person b pays 22% of profits - not liable.
Yet Betfair could have provided far more services to person b.

I have a background in accountancy, and if you are going down the road of charging extra for services and costs, then that is how I look at it.
Post Your Reply
<CTRL+Enter> to submit
Please login to post a reply.

Wonder

Instance ID: 13539
www.betfair.com