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
|
By:
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.
|
|
By:
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? |
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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.
|
|
By:
You're right there Okuma. But how much is a little? Presumably betfair think they have got it right (for now!).
|
|
By:
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? |
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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 |
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
For how long have you worked for betfair, catfloppo?
|
|
By:
Very funny Mavis :D
|
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
Apologies, that last post was for turtle.
|
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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 |
|
By:
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.
|
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
What if they decided to get rid of unethical and unfair IR betting? Would you prefer that?
|
|
By:
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? |
|
By:
Yes you do. You can bet with bookies, other exchanges, totes etc.
|
|
By:
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
|
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
ffs
|
|
By:
There is no one betting IR over there i am too old to play with myself all day
|
|
By:
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... |
|
By:
Eddie
why do you continue to defend the undefensible ? Are you Pythia in disguise? |
|
By:
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? |
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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 :) |
|
By:
Eddie
To me, you are No1 on the defence of the PC However, silence is golden |
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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 |
|
By:
"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 ?:| |
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
"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 :) |
|
By:
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... |
|
By:
"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. |
|
By:
Oops, meant to delete the last paragraph.
|
|
By:
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. |