We want to share an important update with our Betfair Community users.
Over the coming months, the Betfair Community platform will be winding down. The final active day for the platform will be December 21st. From December 22nd, users will no longer be able to access the platform.
Your discussions, insights, engagement, and, most importantly, feedback have helped shape the platform and guided innovation. Your feedback continues to be important to us, and we will continue to listen via our dedicated feedback channels, as well as through product testing and innovations.
To share your feedback and experience, visit: https://support.betfair.com/app/home
General Betting
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
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
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
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 82
|
By:
depends on what you mean by wrong, ethically and morally then yes very wrong and discriminatory
|
|
By:
As well as that, the numbers are wrong.
|
|
By:
Exactly which numbers are wrong ? Feel free to post them if you like and I'll go through them for you.
|
|
By:
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.
|
|
By:
Eddie
In whose interests is the change from 60 weeks GP to lifetime GP? |
|
By:
I would think that was the only change that actually benefitted the customers.
|
|
By:
care to give me your reasoning?
|
|
By:
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.
|
|
By:
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 |
|
By:
The latter and without a doubt would most benefit from lifetime GP.
|
|
By:
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
|
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
OK Eddie - thanks for your responses, and apologies for hijacking your thread Froggit -
|
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
Commission generated includes implied commish
|
|
By:
caleyjags ,the calculations are correct if you had losses that week of approx £ 42 and winnings of approx £ 5.
|
|
By:
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?
|
|
By:
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? |
|
By:
I suppose it is in the sense that one is initially a level playing field,
the other opportunism via market position. |
|
By:
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.
|
|
By:
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? |
|
By:
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.
|
|
By:
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 |
|
By:
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 |
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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.
|
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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). |
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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) |
|
By:
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?
|
|
By:
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! |
|
By:
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 |
|
By:
I paid 40.73% of my gross profit as commission last week. How much did you pay? Feel free to include pc.
|
|
By:
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.
|
|
By:
Why not? The person paying 40% pays both a higher percentage and a higher absolute amount.
|
|
By:
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.
|
|
By:
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? |
|
By:
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%. |