If we had your idea of a blank interface there wouldn't be a natural exchange monopoly because of arbitraging. Can't see Betfair going for that myself. It's hard for anyone who aspires to profit at betting to put offers up elsewhere who isnt a bot user linking their prices to Betfair when they are generally only matched when the Betfair price has moved and is worse.

I callom ,when your allowance runs out ,which will be in the next few weeks i reckon , you will have no more allowance handed to you in future .

The allowance is a one off from now on .

The main liquidity providers on betfair will mostly be automated and wouldn't have a problem echoing their offers on to the purple site. What reason have they for doing so though? Now that the pc is calculated on lifetime profit it's uinlikely they'll ever be affected by it, just like they weren't affected by the two previous commission point band changes. They're certainly never going to shift so that wwinning traders will be able to migrate to where they'll pay only a fraction of what the liquidity providers themselves will.

Personally not sure its so vital to cut out or restrict people who are winning on an exchange, theres always a new generation of punters coming through as long as reproduction is taking place, some win, some lose, and life continues...

As said earlier on, better to publicise the triumphs rather than put a damp squib on any prospective successes, bound to be offputting for those that strive to get to the top...

Perhaps traders were getting a better deal, its never overly bothered me tbh as I concentrate on my own stuff, never been one for being jealous at all, but when changes potentially can affect conventional bettors through no fault of their own that surely has to be looked at again as there are options to some extent for these people.

At least with the new changes you can work out the price which is something one of my punting relatives has always been very strong on, though I think the retrospective takeout creates bad feeling and would be better if they could take it out of the pool before bets are settled if there was any way of doing it....that way its far more transparent and people know where they stand...

Sorry Feck,

If everyone could just behave and answer the original question it would be appreciated, cheers all.

They all forgot me .

One of the things that hasnt been mentioned is the positive publicity surrounded the chargefor BF , a lot of folk who havent been on here before will start thinking ...i don't mind paying 23% if it's that easy to win on there .

It's mirrors life's stratum i guess ....the earners pay the tax and NI (commission, the newbies (immigrants) and losers are handed the £25 sign on tokens (benefits)

Well one of my main goals of betting was always to win money off the books, its part of the challenge for me, I dont personally need my money going towards bringing mugs to the table, would rather take on the pros and may the best man win.

I did used to mostly win on track with the racecourse bookies and you tend to be able to keep the money you pocket off them!

Have never understood this I wish I was paying 25% mentality, suppose thats why these people aren't wining in the first place!!

Most folk would have to evolve over many years I'd guess to become a shark, don't see any fins as yet though so presume I still have a way to go!!!

Well I'd be wrong if I said I wouldnt want to punish silly offers but I've never really seen myself as a fleecer of mugs...otherwise I'd have probably done alot more inplay betting looking at some of the offers on frontrunners that tend to surface on most sports...

Love the challenge of taking on and beating the professional odds setters though...

Well if you're in it for the "challenge", good luck to you.

Me personally? I only care about the money and the more mugs and less "pro's" are what I like to see.

Sorry Lori,

why you don't reply to my question?

I re-write:

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

The way I see it is this 15% who are now thought unlikely to pay it, were people on a lucky run who were thought unlikely to pay it in the first place. Now this group is more unlikely to pay it. But the removal of rolling allowance's probably brings in more than the 15%, and means everyone will be paying a lot more.

The £1,000 allowance against the charge, the 250 market threshold and the exclusion of any single win that constitutes more than 50% of gross profits will also apply to the lifetime of each account.

that to me means that you get one £1000 allowance for your whole lifetime, if your previous years profits would have been subject to premium charge then i'm afraid that it is most likely that your £1000 allowance would already have been swallowed up.


What doesnt sit right though is that they say for new customers it is irrelevant wether its lifetime or sixty weeks. but what about after 60 weeks

Consistent winners will pay more.

Those who have fluke runs over a year that take them into PC-land will pay less, cos it'll be averaged out over their lifetime net profit.

I can't believe pythia would have deliberately misled people in a way that was going to be so obvious the second the emails went out. my guess is that he wasn't given the real details himself - so I'm inclined to cut him a *bit* of slack.

he should have made sure he had the precise, final details before posting on here, but I don't think he consciously misled people; why would he when the facts would just leave him high and dry?

Get on Massive

Sharks - are anybody who can win regularly regardless of the methods they use to do this.

Basically it's people who take money out of the exchange on a regular basis. This is money that BF cannot now win and has to be replaced to enable the exchange to standstill never mind grow.

Imagine a small exchange with 100 leisure punters doing battle with each other - the money sloshes backwards and forwards - some days an individual wins others he loses..they're not too bothered..it's leisure to them...and their money lasts longer than it did in the shops...but eventually (in theory) Betfair gets the lot in commissions.

Now a shark joins the exchange...snaps up all the 'value' offered by the 'punters'...leaving the bad value alone...He offers bad value prices some of which get taken....acts as middleman between the punters ensuring they get slightly worse prices etc.. He makes a regular 'wage' which he withdraws each week.

RESULT - THe exchange is now less attractive to the 'punters'.They lose their money quicker..some will leave...Betfair makes less in commission.. (the leisure punters have less to play with now, because the shark's had it). Betfair has to spend money to encourage the losers to deposit more...and attract new customers (both to maintain commission levels ...AND feed the ever hungry shark).

It makes no business sense at all.

Why not just encourage the shark to leave?...or charge him more.

john92 spot on.

Last time we had the helpdesk not knowing what the detail was, this time we had senior managers not knowing the detail. Agree poor show.

I'm back for a quick encore.
To me it makes it a less attractive proposition Johnny if there is no chance of any decent profits at the end of your punting, whats the point if all the money is going solely to the operators, cant see how they could sustain that kind of operation at all.
People bet to win money and if there was no sign of it happening, they would surely soon lose interest, apart from the compulsive ones who perhaps would end up in debt...

Some folk do win decent amounts from them though, they tend to publicise these in order to gain new custom.

Before Betfair appeared, you wouldn't have been able to make the money you are doing today anyway

It was easier pre Betfair.