General Betting
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
Pythia 30 Sep 03:55
curly, I think your guess will prove to be well wide of the mark. There will be a tiny percentage of PC payers who are likely to pay more, the bulk of them being those who will no longer be able to offset transaction fees against the charge.
About 15% of current PC payers will fall outside the new Ts and Cs and be unlikely payers once the lifetime offset and other changes kick in.
Now the full version of the rules has been posted in services, can anyone explain to me how only a tiny percentage of PC payers will pay more?
Unlike Pythia, I don't work for Betfair, but it appears that other than the 15% claimed, it seems that not only will all current payers pay more, but there will be hundreds of new people who were previous protected by the allowance who will now also pay PC in the course of the next 2-3 years.
Am I missing something as to why I won't pay more here?
curly, I think your guess will prove to be well wide of the mark. There will be a tiny percentage of PC payers who are likely to pay more, the bulk of them being those who will no longer be able to offset transaction fees against the charge.
About 15% of current PC payers will fall outside the new Ts and Cs and be unlikely payers once the lifetime offset and other changes kick in.
Now the full version of the rules has been posted in services, can anyone explain to me how only a tiny percentage of PC payers will pay more?
Unlike Pythia, I don't work for Betfair, but it appears that other than the 15% claimed, it seems that not only will all current payers pay more, but there will be hundreds of new people who were previous protected by the allowance who will now also pay PC in the course of the next 2-3 years.
Am I missing something as to why I won't pay more here?
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 219
|
By:
The removal of the £1k allowance means we'll all pay an extra £1k every 60wks to start with :)
|
|
By:
yes you are missing the fact that those protected by the 250 market rule over 60 weeks, one big win over 60 weeks, and those protected by significant transaction charges will also now pay it ;)
|
|
By:
it was obvious that anybody who pays it regularly would pay more due to the allowance being removed. i dont think that regular payers are a "tiny" number of PC payers.
for a betfair employee to claim otherwise was insulting, and incredible since this employee admitted betfairs communication was not good enough. you are part of the problem mate. if you dont know all the facts, or arent prepared to be honest, then dont say anything. |
|
By:
I am pretty disguted with Pythia behaviour. The only excuse I can think of was he was not sure of the detail himself.
I thought the original introduction of the PC was poor with helpdesk staff not knowing the full details, but this change has come about with senior Betfair staff apparently not knowing the detail, or they deliberately misled us (take your pick) |
|
By:
As someone said in the other thread, I doubt it's a real betfair employee, just someone screwing around
|
|
By:
If he/she is an employee, then he/she is a pretty dopey one!
|
|
By:
To be fair to pythias they are just toeing the company line
We anticipate that the changes will reduce the number of customers affected by the charge and also the total amount of Premium Charges collected each week. Thats what on the announcement and its a lie. More customers affected and more money made |
|
By:
They've got command of the English language imho. I can't be arsed on here to go through my posts and insert commas and correct my spellings where appropriate.
|
|
By:
Ho Lori Hi pythia,
In september 2008 I the premium charge on the 1st week. You don't get me 1000 pund of bonus because you calculate 60 week before. Now si septamber 2009 and my allowance bonus is grown and from zero now is 700 pund about. Question is: you remouve this my new bonus or I can take it? In the new rules I don't understand. THX |
|
By:
I think my guess of 99% was well wide of the mark - more like 100%
|
|
By:
sorry for my english. I re-write:
Hi Lori Hi pythia, In september 2008 I pay the premium charge on the 1st week. You don't get me 1000 pund of bonus because you calculate 60 week before. Now is september 2009 and my allowance bonus is grown and from zero now is 700 pund about. Question is: you will remouve this my new bonus or I can take it? In the new rules I don't understand. THX |
|
By:
was that meant to be better english ?
|
|
By:
He's saying he's got £700 allowance. Will he still have this £700 allowance when the new rules kick in?
I guess yes, but my understanding is that this allowance can never increase. Think mine is around £150. |
|
By:
Can I have a reply? THX
|
|
By:
I don't think Pythia will be posting on the forum any time soon Icallom. Possibly he'll disappear into the forum ether like many before. You have to have suicidal tendencies to post on here even if you don't work for Betfair.
We are our own worst enemies at times. The seeds for the initial premium charge may well have sprouted from ideas started on this forum and the same goes for the latest price hikes. It's the self destruct button in most gamblers. Utter pillocks most of us |
|
By:
1.01 we don't hear much from pythia for a day or two.
|
|
By:
Lori, are you saying this is a lie:
We anticipate that the changes will reduce the number of customers affected by the charge and also the total amount of Premium Charges collected each week. |
|
By:
that's probably true for week 1, and x weeks thereafter. but that's pretty insignificant compared to the long term loss to virtually all payers.
|
|
By:
I've analysed Pythia's post of September 30th and I counted over 20 commas and zero spelling mistakes. Now either Pythia is naturally good and fastidious at spelling and grammar that he can post off the cuff or his post came straight off a word processing document with spell check. Not quite as good at maths as english though imho.
|
|
By:
Investor -
last september betfair said that the premium charge would not be increased this year. Pythia said only a very few PC payers would pay more from October, yet now every PC payer will be paying more as the years roll by, more than £1.7 million. The piece you quote is merely Betfair spin to hide the increases |
|
By:
I think its best for Lori not to answer that question Investor as he makes his living gambling and he might not want to question the integrity of an official post in such a blatant manner don't you? As such your question is a tad inciteful.
If you asked him "do you think PC revenues will increase and more people would pay PC? and I'm sure he'd answer your question Rather I'd highlight the thread topic namely Pythia's comment that "There will be a tiny percentage of PC payers who are likely to pay more, the bulk of them being those who will no longer be able to offset transaction fees against the charge." Is there anyone on the Betfair forum who agrees with that? |
|
By:
Let's face facts, Betfair aren't voluntarily going to give up profits.
Any changes made to the Premium Charge now or in the future are likely to increase what we pay. For that reason I don't think it is in anyone's benefit to complain about anything to do with PC to betfair, as in x months time, they will once again come out with 'having listened to our customers we have decided upon the following changes that will result in us receiving less...' (yeah right), blah blah. Just stay quiet and hope things don't get worse. Betfair are treading a fine line between making as much money as possible and losing customers. By the way, who are these 300 customers they spoke to? It doesn't even mention whether they are paying PC or not. |
|
By:
shock pythia has run away
|
|
By:
It`s not 300 customers , it was Feck they spoke to 300 times.
Has anyone other than Feck declared speaking to them ? |
|
By:
Too true Investor. I said the big win exemption was a loophole and I said people would restrict their business to under 250 markets and Betfair have listened!! Other's have said they want to know what their implied commission rate was and Betfair have listened again by giving us a flat figure smaller than it actually is (allegedly)!! They got rid of the £1k allowance all by themselves though. Credit where credit is due.
|
|
By:
They got rid of the £1k allowance all by themselves though. Credit where credit is due.
Clydebank, they did that on the back of changing the 60 week period to lifetime of the account, which was also requested by customers. A better option (for us at least) would have been to give customers an allowance of £1000+ 1000 * number of years as a customer. But like I said, suggesting any changes seems to be futile. I would literally pay for an agreement that said charges will remain static for the rest of your time as a customer, as I believe prices could rise further in the future. The question is what kind of price increase can they get away with before people start leaving? |
|
By:
The Investor,
Whilst from relatively early days of the PC "announcement" around a year ago, Ive been largely accepting of the PC, Ive always had that nagging suspicion that its the thin end of the wedge about how BF will operate in the future. Its very introduction went against BF's very own "essence." This is quite a flowery statement, I must admit but its not being over dramatic to say that a certain part of the connection between some customers and BF died at the point of its introduction, especially those that had been involved with BF from its earlier days. It was almost as if a "threshold" had been crossed that was impossible to remove once it had been done so. From the beginning, BF were (quite rightly) keen to push home the message that "winners are welcome." Move forward to today, and the overall message & impression is "winners are tolerated." That is a huge fundamental shift and does give some credence to those that believe BF are continually moving in a direction that means they become a "bookie" instead of a "betting exchange." If this directional movement is correct then winners are increasingly becoming a competitior of BF itself as both groups target the same pool of funds. At this point, BF would claim "its only fair that winners pay a fair amount." That maybe true, but you have to admit, if the former assertion is correct, its extremely conveinient. BF say that the assertion is incorrect? Fair enough, convince me. As I have a lot less trust bestowed upon BF then compared to 2 years ago. Not even BF could create a strong case why this increased mis-trust is misplaced. It would go a long way to convince me if BF were to introduce a £1,000 allowance for every 60 weeks an account has been in existance. I wont hold my breath though. As Ive said before, I can actually swallow the reasoning behind the need for the PC. But (to use a very insensitive but probably apt analogy) its like the USA dropping nuclear bombs on Japan. To end the war, it was a no-brain decision at the time, and theres a very strong case even now for them for doing it. But what can of worms has been opened for tomorrow? |
|
By:
Some of you just don't get it do you?
Betfair want a punter v punter exchange...NOT a sharks fleecing punters exchange. The sharks can leave.. ( or pay more.) This pricing policy moves them nearer to their ideal business model. |
|
By:
Surprised they can press the right keys with those large fins, must make a few typos on the forum....amazing how they dont accidentally press lay instead of back alot of the time....
|
|
By:
Personally I'd prefer it if those who weren't doing so well got better rather than just chop off the top of the food chain, part of the challenge of betting is the dog eat dog and its up to each individual to improve or learn from his mistakes....
|
|
By:
I'm not sure their ideal business model is punter-to-punter exchange at all.
They cd rather run 'play betfair' w/ imaginary money until 15 mins. b/f the off. Then they cd take the market equilibrium prices, put their own lay money on top and charge winners 5% commission. At first they thought they needed winners. Now they're not so sure. |
|
By:
Why not just keep the top echelons, who are more likely to bet large sums against each other and throw out everyone who's no good....would that not work the same way??? i.e. anyone who has made less than 10k after 12 months has to pay the PC to make it less attractive to carry on....
Sounds silly but is it not more or less the same thing? |
|
By:
Was just taking Johnny's "ideal business model" as an example....not particularly advocating the above lol.
|
|
By:
They all forgot, to some extent bookies' exclusion policies do that for them anyway.
And my sense is that while pre-bf, winners w/ the bookies found some way to keep betting w/ them, now there are many winners who are exclusively exchange players. And further these people are cannibalising off the former set of winners, while the books are still feasting on their mugs. |
|
By:
Hi Lori Hi pythia,
In september 2008 I pay the premium charge on the 1st week. You don't get me 1000 pund of bonus because you calculate 60 week before. Now is september 2009 and my allowance bonus is grown and from zero now is 700 pund about. Question is: you will remouve this my new bonus or I can take it? In the new rules I don't understand. THX |
|
By:
Re the sharks v punters comment.
Does anyone (Betfair included) seriously believe that it`s possible to get rid of `sharks`? In any pvp model even if you banned everyone currently paying PC or even everyone currently winning a new bunch of sharks would simply emerge, it`s natural order. Betfair`s ideal model is one in which everyone bets at perfect odds and therefore only loses money to BF through commission. But you don`t get to this by pricing out certain users, you need as much competition as possible in the markets to make the prices more accurate. I can understand to some extent the justification for the PC but the precedent of meddling with the `natural` working of the markets is dangerous, the more you discriminate in the system the more likely you are to destroy it- and the more you disincentivize winning the more you disincentize playing. There`s a reason that, rather than get rid of their `sharks`, poker sites put them on billboards. |
|
By:
people go on about sharks, all I know is, I don't courtside, don't use bots, and virtually every market I work ends up with more liquidity and nearer 100% because of what I do.
and I'm still getting nailed. |
|
By:
The different between poker sites and betting exchanges is that the betting exchange market is a natural monopoly because of arbitraging. Even without that problem the barriers to entry in the betting exchange market are much greater than in poker because the set up and running costs are probably much greater.
|
|
By:
From reading this thread there are obviously some pc payers who still believe their own publicity. If you ran an exchange would you be sitting eagerly awaiting the arrival of a large group of winning players who have practically nothing to offer in terms of liquidity and who will grudgingly give you 5% of their profits to act as middlemen on your exchange?
The fact is, you have nowhere else to go and never will have unless the gamblers migrate. Ttat you all now act like the enemy within can only speed up pc increaes or (if betfair see sense) your removal altogether. |