|
By:
Dogdice no. I wouldn't want to quit if i was earning 100kplus
|
|
By:
the betfairy puts it in a nutshell.
|
|
By:
apologies for being boring dstyle ;)
to be fair, wouldnt' just charging 3.5% for everybody (assuming a median commission rate currently of lower than 3.5%, say probably 2.8 to 2.9% on average) mean that losers could access betfair more cheaply, but the people who would pay the most to use betfair (the winners) would pay a lot more for the privilege? |
|
By:
Snake Plissken 22 Sep 16:43
If they start closing winning accounts no one will play and the business will die. How many hundreds of millions of pounds profit do the Big 3 make? ;) Do they leave winning accounts open ;) |
|
By:
Dj isn't that cutting into your profits you must be on the most 2%
|
|
By:
and if T & C sticks his oar in I know the topic is doomed, like the green boggy marsh it was before it even started.
|
|
By:
I'm on 2.5% at the mo.
|
|
By:
T & C is a legend :x
|
|
By:
dogdice Amaranth ?
|
|
By:
I could be on 2.5% is I blew all my bank ;)
|
|
By:
If 70% of accounts that win one year lose the following year closing winning accounts would be a big mistake. By all means remove the winning insiders and **s who cannot lose from the system but removing genuine punters would be a mistake. Patterns change all the time. Last years biggest winner could well be this year's biggest loser.
|
|
By:
Personally, I think banning winners is something Betfair won't ever to, but anyone who wins here at a faster rate than Betfair (with all their operating costs) are earning on average in commission off the clientbase as a whole is a source of irritation to Betfair.
To Betfair, the ideal two punters are two of identical long-term ability who just pass money back and forth between each other all the time with Betfair being the only long-term winner via the commission. Anyone who winning a big lump in one hit and then withdrawing it to live on takes money out of the system and doesn't earn Betfair much in the way of commission. Big winners also create problems at the other end of the spectrum - big losers, and Betfair don't want people doing their conkers in double quick time and packing it in. They want people to get through their banks slowly, over a long period of time, with Betfair themselves being the biggest net winner off them via the commission, not some pro punter. Someone (not me, but I agreed with him once he explained it to me) first raised this concept back at Flutter back in 2001 and was dismissed at the time: youre mad, our biggest winners are our biggest commission payers, the marketing people told him. Like some on this forum, those marketing people hadnt really sat down and thought about it enough and viewed the figures. But long since then, I hear the accountants at Betfair have started saying pretty much the same thing and the penny has dropped with Betfair that the big losers are the ones they need to be looking after the most because the big winners can already look after themselves. It's all about ''churn'' and it's the punters of average ability who churn the most. Big winners dont create churn and they do create big losers who dont help churn either. Im not quite sure what Betfair can do about this, but there is validity to DJs thinking here |
|
By:
If Betfair was an aeroplane (;)) would it be charging 100 each for business class tickets, and 1000 each for economy? (that is actually a serious question)
|
|
By:
the hedge fund Amaranth. and yes, T & C is a legend, but that's as far as that goes.
|
|
By:
Dj i think you have hit the nail on the head.
|
|
By:
Quite simply, Betfair needs to big accounts to provide liquidity. That's how the majority of markets are populated. WIthout the big accounts there would be nothing for the small accounts to bet on. Would charing the big accounts deter them? You'd have to ask the owners.
|
|
By:
it's all about "churn" - well, at least the Colonel knows what he's talking about.
|
|
By:
How did the big accounts get big Betfairy? If it was by winning off the rest of the userbase, giving people the opportunity to lose money to someone who has already beaten them up, isn't exactly sound logic for Betfair.
You are right though if the big accounts are from sources of money other than beating up other punters. |
|
By:
go on then, would you short Stanley Leisure now ?
|
|
By:
Even if you're a consistent winner on here, the amount of turnover you have to create to make a certain profit wouldn't make it in bf's interest to close down you're account.
For example if you made 50k profit that would probably come from a turnover of at least 20X that say wins of 550k and lossesof 500k. Don't worry DJ, I'm sure it won't happen. |
|
By:
If the big market-making accounts are charged more, then there comes a certain level when it is unprofitable for them to make those markets. Then the markets are not populated and Betfair earns nothing. Simple.
|
|
By:
Freddie Done has gone long on Stanley, but why ?
Betfair is a t**enny operation and it's kind of loveable in it's way, but would YOU buy into it now ? |
|
By:
short memories
|
|
By:
Turnup4thebooks,
What about insiders though? Betfair currently have a number of accounts with people betting on reality tv after the result is known to those people. I watched one market get hoovered from 1.6 down to sub 1.1, with everything available to take on that selection being taken (Mikey eviction, BB7, under 50%) market. Again, everything was hoovered on the Lisa BB7 over 60% market, and she was evicted with 60.3% a few minutes later. The people doing this are taking money straight out of the system, from genuine punters, who won't then have the money to churn between themselves. I think the real damage being done by phone vote insiders isn't to other punters (they have a bet, they lose their money, they don't come back), its to Betfair itself. |
|
By:
vacuumed up dj, VACUUMED !
|
|
By:
snorted?
|
|
By:
Betfairy,
I'd agree with you on markets with thin liquidity, but not on markets with big liquidity. Betfair doesn't need any market makers for most of its mainstream events. The logical solution would be to offer carrots to big accounts putting volume into markets with thin liquidity, whilst recognising that they dont' need such carrots on markets with high liquidity. |
|
By:
I can see DJ's logic, but I'm a big believer in free markets which means imho that anyone should be able to place a bet of any size, at any price in any market - as they can now. (except for crooks betting on inside info).
Haven't Betfair stated in past advertising that they never close winning accounts ? It wouldn't be BetFAIR if some people were banned, surely ? |
|
By:
DJ, I covered insiders in my posting above. I agree they should be banned and who says that they arent?
|
|
By:
but it's all about weeing in a small pond isn't it ?
|
|
By:
They don't have to ban any BB insiders do they!!
Just close the markets 10 minutes early. They could do the same with IR horse racing - close the market at the 2flg pole. The average punter wouldn't be hurt - they might even be encouraged as they could never be picked off. |
|
By:
adding something to this debate is like trying to find a tax disc on a B road,
fruitful and yet somehow pointless. |
|
By:
...like a school debating club.
|
|
By:
but in answer to the original question - Betfair is NOT a budget airline. it's just not the same model.
|
|
By:
id be happy if they looked after us regular customers, the simple things like a personal reply to an email i sent instead of just sweeping me and any issues I have under the carpet. IM not going to touch the way they operate markets :-(
|
|
By:
This place has become a summer camp, where children occasionally meet
and discuss foolish ideas. |
|
By:
I think I should draw a distinction here. Pricing on betfair should be set at a rate proportional to the inverse elasticity of demand of the user. In English, that means that an insider making 100% profit on their bets, would happily pay 99% commission on their bets (its still free money), whilst many big winners would pay 6, 7, 8% on their bets (if forced to).
Betfair don't need to ever close down an account, but the real nub of the issue is highlighted to my mind by the clock beaters. People have said on here that beating the clock happened for 18 months (no idea if this is or isn't the case). If someone is hammering the market, Betfair's market operations team will see that they are doing it. I just think that if the same thing happened in 10 years time, the response would be different. I think an account beating the clock would be shut down in ten years time, whereas now it would be monitored, and eventually when the clock-beating came to light, the software would be reprogrammed. Chicken and egg, but in ten years time, I think it'll be the chicken they go for. |
|
By:
dogdice,
why is not the same model? surely both should charge more to the customers who are willing to pay more for the product. |
|
By:
and yes i agree with top post, betfair should act on behalf of regular customers in closing them down.
|
|
By:
Hunger strike to get DJ Sunset banned. Sign in below:
|