betfairs premium charges fiddle

Ok cheers, i think i have missed the boat then.

Always interested in who thinks who makes what here and even better with some numbers attached.

Byline: David Ashforth

"BHA BHA butylated hydroxyanisole, an antioxidant used in foods, cosmetics, and pharmaceuticals that contain fats or oils.
BHA
n.
A white, waxy phenolic antioxidant used to preserve fats and oils, especially in foods.  CHAIRMAN Paul Roy has suggested a new approach to a new government in a bid to ensure punters acting as professional layers on betting exchanges contribute to the levy that funds horseracing.

Roy was reacting to a legal assessment by gambling expert David Zeffman of the long-running row between bookmakers and exchanges over claims that some layers operate as unlicensed bookmakers, free from the tax and levy payments made by bookmakers.

Zeffman, head of gambling and sport at law firm Olswang, wrote in the Racing Post The Racing Post is a British daily horse racing, greyhound racing and sports betting newspaper. It is owned by Sheikh Mohammed and published under a 10 year lease by Trinity Mirror.  on Tuesday that "behind all the myths, the legal reality is relatively straightforward". That reality, Zeffman suggested, is that is is "very likely that some users are conducting themselves as a business and therefore have a liability to pay both levy and betting duty".

Ads by GoogleBankruptcy in 3 Steps
Declare Bankruptcy in 3 Easy Steps. We guide your through Bankruptcy.
www.Debt-UK-Online.co.uk/Bankruptcy
Got Debt Problems?
Debts Over £5k? Want Free Advice? pay Only £180 And Clear All Debts
www.churchwoodfinance.co.uk

Roy was one of the Levy Board members who unveiled last month a cut of pounds 4.6 million in the budget for 2010 in the light of revised forecasts of income from bookmakers. Revenue for this year is expected to be pounds 87.4m, compared to pounds 91.1m forecast last September, a figure also revised downwards to take into account betting operators moving their internet sportsbooks offshore.

Roy said: "We are not just going to sit here and watch professionals operating on the exchanges, in business, negotiating and taking bets when they are not licensed and not paying tax and levy.

"If someone is doing 1,000 bets an hour and they are setting up the technology in what is effectively a trading room The notion of "trading room" (sometimes used as a synonym of "trading floor", see below) is widely used in financial markets to refer to the office space where market activities are concentrated in investment banks or brokerage houses.  on a racecourse, you tell me whether they are in business or not.

"Things have moved on since the treasury review of 2004-05. At that time they stated there wasn't sufficient evidence. Well, if there isn't sufficient evidence now I don't know when there will be because it is staring you in the face."

Referring to the government's concern that taxing exchange layers would raise the prospect of gamblers seeking to offset losses against other income for tax purposes, Roy said: "I think the government is losing out on tax but that is another issue. I'm only interested in the levy and I know that these people should be paying levy."

Martin Cruddace, Betfair's legal director and company secretary, accused Zeffman of lacking impartiality because of a link between Olswang and the BHA, claiming it "devalues his position as an independent commentator".

Cruddace added: "Many of his legal arguments do not stand up to scrutiny. Betfair's position has been made clear to the relevant authorities and is publicly available on our corporate website. None of those authorities has yet to be persuaded by the counter-arguments of either the BHA or William Hill The name William Hill may refer to the following: People

    * William Hill (Australian politician) (1866-1939), a long serving member of the Australian House of Representatives.

, which get no better for repetition, made as they kiss and cuddle under the duvet du·vet 
n.
A quilt, usually with a washable cover, that may be used in place of a bedspread and top sheet.


[French, down, from Old French, alteration of dumet, diminutive of dum, dun  together."

Dismissing the accusation A formal criminal charge against a person alleged to have committed an offense punishable by law, which is presented before a court or a magistrate having jurisdiction to inquire into the alleged crime.  of impartiality, Zeffman said: "While it is true that Olswang are advising the BHA in relation to exchanges and the levy, it is also true that I started looking at these questions long before we were instructed by the BHA. The accuracy of my analysis is not affected by whether or not I'm instructed by a client. I'd have reached the same conclusions if Betfair had asked me to look at this and I'm happy to debate my analysis with them."

Sorry about that. It appears to have copied the whole page across including some other tripe :)

Here ya go Brendan.
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/FRANK+EXCHANGES%3b+'The+main+reason+for+a+fall+in+levy+receipts+is+the...-a0225909772

Feck N. Eejit Joined: 10 Jan 02
Replies: 1123 17 May 10 19:59 
We subsidise them, they leach off our information and we'll end up getting taxed because of them.

Don't you think we should be taxed? After all, we're currently paying less than everyone else, so I don't see any reason to complain. [;)]

FECK...I be happy for Betfair to just leave it the way it was.
If it ain broke don't try to fix it.

Flip sake Betfair according to their own accounts printed in the Racing Post and on Google they made £303 million last year at a cost of £47 million. Thats nearly a 80% profit on Sales.

In a recession why look for even more? Especially off Mickey Mouse players like myself and HUTGRAZE and many more like us.

A guy is entiled to some return for all the hours a lot of us put in on here just pr1cking around with little bets.

Still on the postive side my weekends have now become that again, (weekends) since Betfair brought in the premiun charge I just don't bother now wasting them anymore on here......Cheers

Ok so this David Zeffman guy works for BHA and wants extra money for that as BHA cant stand on its own two feet without leaching off other sports. And has been rebuffed by both betfair & the revenue.

I am guessing his 100s or 1000s of people making £100,000 plus is pure speculation also, as its either 100s or 1000s not both which are an order of magnitude apart.

100s or 1000s making 100,000 bets a year sounds like pure speculation to. That volume of bets can only be done via a bot, so means 100s or 1000s of users with very profitable bots.

Doesnt sound right to me.

Bren...I actually think what he was saying there was 100s if not 1000s of guy on Betfair who place over a 100,000 bets a year with them. All aided by help from Betfair developement services.

With some of them making over a £100,000 a year.

But as far as this thread goes why not chase them for premiun charges instead of guys like myself or HUTGRAZE who if only reaching the pc area now after 8 years here are mere pidy players......Cheers

there is literrally 100s if not 1000s of guys on here who are making over a £100,000 a year who have over a 100,000 bets on Betfair a year that don't paid premiun charges.

There is no "some" in that if it is a direct quote. The fact that they use bots are very profitable and dont pay pc is bit fishy aswell. Sounds like someone with an agenda.

Betfair have in their wisdom set the premium charge limit at something low, is it 160 markets a year? That is easily changed if they think they are catching the casual punter. I dont know why they set it so low.

I wouldnt be against it rising to 500-1000 markets a year. An avid punter on football could easily have 10 bets on a weekend and a few more mid week, if it was fairer to the casual punter

BREN.....Betfair have in their wisdom set the premium charge limit at something low, is it 160 markets a year?

Its NIL now they removed the limit last September per year.

.........................................................

There is a LIFETIME limit now of 250 markets which in my case averages out at 25 PER YEAR.

In HUTGRAZE the owner of this thread he had around 31 markets per year based on his 8 years here....Cheers

I didnt realise that. Dont agree with it, caual punter shouldnt be paying pc imo.

Don't you think we should be taxed? After all, we're currently paying less than everyone else, so I don't see any reason to complain

It's not the tax that worries me, it's the effect on liquidity. Betfair have created a glut of kiddy on professional gamblers through their micky mouse, copy cat friendly, interface and their aiding and abetting of cheating. IMO, even if it doesn't come back to haunt them in the shape of taxation, none of that does betfair any good anyway. It only fuels a more rapid turnover of clients and suppresses liquidity. In addition, their cheat/trader tax doesn't must deter new customers.

PS I wouldn't like to have to contribute to the levy. I think I've already contributed more than enough to racing by being at the wrong end of corruption.

* In addition, their cheat/trader tax must deter new customers.

Have you had a bet on here this year then ?

Have you ever had a bet (in the true sense of the word) on here?

Yes I have ,very rare though.

I`ll take it your answer is no ,keep up the crusade Feck.

why wouldnt feck have had a proper  bet on here. is he laying the fallers at the track or backing them when they are almost at the line  or something ?

Feck has no time to bet on here ,his time is used up on his crusade for an exchange that hides all bets,that and the bankers ,there`s barely time left to eat.

I have had bets but can you tell me of what relevance that is? Are you implying e.g. that I can only hold an opinion on bankers if I have money in a hedge fund or that I'm a hypocrite to think that roofers charging pensioners their life savings to have a slate replaced are s c u m unless my roof's leaking?

Feck did start a thread on here 6 months ago, moaning about the need for 100 commission points before being able to download betfair historical data.

Quite strong evidence that he doesn't actually bet on betfair.


self pwnage at it's best

First time I've ever been accused of self pwnage Escapee. I didn't get where I am today by indulging in self pwnage.

The 100 pt rule is indicative of the thinking within betfair. Doesn't matter if you've paid millions in commission. Once you've fell victim to pow(0.85,52) you're worthless in the eyes of betfair's trader worshipping boffins. A very silly group of people who couldn't even sell Asian handicaps at 1% commission on profit to Asians because of their stupid stock market interface.

Once you've fell victim to pow(0.85,52) you're worthless in the eyes of betfair...


What a ponced up way of admitting that you don't bet on betfair.


"its not fair..., I'm a victim.... its not fair..."
blah blah, blah blah blah


grow up, grow a pair and stop blaming everyone else for your own shortcoming's Feck

"its not fair..., I'm a victim.... its not fair..."
blah blah, blah blah blah


grow up, grow a pair and stop blaming everyone else for your own shortcoming's

Given this is another pc whinging thread, I'm probably the only person on the thread that post should be directed at.

"Boo hoo hoo. It's not fair that us pc payers pay less than everyone else. Boo hoo hoo. We should only be paying a quarter of that. Boo hoo hoo. We're so important. Boo hoo hoo. It's us that supply all the liquidity. Boo hoo hoo."

"Oh mummy. A bad man's stole my toblerone mummy".

"Look at me daddy. I'm adapting my strategy to keep pace with the ever changing market conditions daddy".

"Oh mummy. There's been an outage and I've been unable to close out. Boo hoo hoo. 3 month's toblerones down the drain mummy."

"Oh mummy. There's a bad man on here saying I don't supply liquidity. Boo hoo hoo. I'm jolly well going to phone betfair and have him banned."

"its not fair..., I'm a victim.... its not fair..."
blah blah, blah blah blah

"Oh mummy. A bad man's stole my toblerone mummy".

ffs, is feck still spewing this sh!t?

it's like an 18 month long cry for help.

I'm paying PC tomorrow. Only the second time in 2010 for me.

The thing is that as my balance increases, the return on cash deployed in the markets gets smaller and smaller. Eventually, I will naturally incur more than 20% in commission charges, without PC avoidance strategies, but any PC I pay now, will never be returned.

Year on year my contribution to Betfair as a percentage of GP has increased, without even taking PC into account.

It's only £50 (out of a max possible of close to £600), but it's still a charge that delivers no benefit to me, which is why increasing my commission as a % of GP (without negative impact on absolute returns) is a priority for me, as it is an element related to maximizing profit.

£500 p.c tomorrow for me.

Sickening.

The Investor     18 May 10 21:46 
I'm paying PC tomorrow. Only the second time in 2010 for me.

The thing is that as my balance increases, the return on cash deployed in the markets gets smaller and smaller. Eventually, I will naturally incur more than 20% in commission charges, without PC avoidance strategies, but any PC I pay now, will never be returned.

Year on year my contribution to Betfair as a percentage of GP has increased, without even taking PC into account.

It's only £50 (out of a max possible of close to £600), but it's still a charge that delivers no benefit to me, which is why increasing my commission as a % of GP (without negative impact on absolute returns) is a priority for me, as it is an element related to maximizing profit.

I've been giving it some thought over the last few days.  It's the "increasing my commission as a % of GP (without negative impact on absolute returns)" which I have concluded.  I've thought of a few ways of doing this but they interfere with my strategies and so haven't yet decided whether to implement them.  Do you do this as a matter of course?  And is that how you've only paid PC twice this year? (I've paid it every week since I first paid it a couple of months back).

And to think some of us PC moaners were bitter, Feck is even more bitter at the fact he's not good enough to pay it

The really nutty thing about the pc is this. Suppose betfair didn't deduct normal commission and just deducted/rebated after every market so that all winners paid 22.5% of their overall profits. Each Wednesday they then calculated what each person would've paid under the old system for the previous week. If that amount was more than what had already been deducted the customer would be billed for the difference.

1) Everyone would pay more or less what they're paying now.

2) The only people who wouldn't be billed on a Wednesday would be the current pc payers.

3) The current pc payers would stop moaning.

4) Everyone else would start moaning because they'd then realise they were subsidising the middlemen leeches that make up the bulk of 3).

It would almost certainly lead to betfair's demise and how much more rapid would that come about if they were only initially deducting ~5% of overall profits (as was the case for the first 6 or 7 years of betfair)?

Sharp minds my @rse. The imbecilic whinging of those who have the best deal in town is matched only by the stupidity of betfair in implementing such a complex and unfair commission system. At the very least the default commission system should be a small turnover charge so that the average punter is protected from those complexities (this would also suit the occassional players). The rest of us would have to opt in to more complex alternative systems. Betfair would have to reserve the right to force certain customers into alternative systems though as the small turnover charge so they could continue to extract their slice of the action from the cheats they like to accomodate.

* Betfair would have to reserve the right to force certain customers into alternative systems though so they could continue to extract their slice of the action from the cheats they like to accomodate (as the small turnover charge would suit them).

The default commission scheme could be along the lines of 2-3% of the smaller of the backer's and layer's liabilities. That would mean betfair would more or less get the equivalent of their current 5% of profit (they would also get this on each bet as opposed to overall market profit). Most of us (winners in particular) would choose to opt in to a more complex scheme. This would maybe consist of something similar to the current scheme but where non liquidity providers would be penalised more (as in my all new liquidity generating premium charge). Implementing this would allow betfair to charge middlemen leeches and cheats say 30% of profits without hurting liquidity providers and without exposing themselves to leech propoganda such as "20% better odds but 30% commission" as everyone would know the default commission was only 2.5% (or whatever).

The all new liquidity generating Premium Charge = (GrossProfit - 5 * CommissionGenerated) / 2

My last few posts seem to have shut everyone up so I thought the subject deserved a thread of its own. [;)]

It's probably just a temporary reprieve.

You still seem outnumbered though Feck. The Shadow Ministry of Misinformation and Self-Interest needs more recruits.

betfair is still the best thing since sliced bread.

feck, mate, i've missed something here.....what is your problem with traders?

he was bitten by one as a child.

thisis, they generally contribute no liquidity but think they supply it all, they pay less commission on profit than any other group yet b1tch continually about it, they often have no knowledge of the sport they're trading on, they clog up the api with their requests for information, they're the biggest hurdle to an interface that doesn't deter large bets, their pretentious would be city boy talk is nauseating, they feck up the trading figures with their ping-pong money ... In short, they're parasitic middlemen who should be flushed down the pan with their financial sector equivalents.

18 months on, feck's still determined to demonstrate his economic illiteracy to the last few remote tribes in the Amazon who haven't heard about it yet.

More pantomine stuff from the clown prince of traders.

cheerio feck. I will be back again for your regular check-up in another 6 months to see if there's been any improvement in your obsessive-delusional condition. or maths.

Bye pres, hope your next training for freedom spell will see you finally released.

It's just a pity there wasn't another site that only charged you traders a quarter of what betfair charge. The fact you think you supply the bulk of the liquidity surely you'd soon force all the gamblers to such a site? Or is my maths out again?

The premium charge is a charge aimed at winners, not traders. If Betfair had wanted to target traders they would have a model based on reciprocal betting on selections within markets- i.e. is the account backing and laying to a similar amount within a market.

The premium charge is a charge aimed at winners, not traders. If Betfair had wanted to target traders they would have a model based on reciprocal betting on selections within markets- i.e. is the account backing and laying to a similar amount within a market.


im a trader and it looks like its about to him me,  THT

:(

It's a charge aimed at winners that don't generally supply liquidity i.e. traders, cheats and insiders. Without them there would be so few people paying it betfair wouldn't have bothered implementing it.

I don't fall into any of those three and I pay it, I just lay at long odds in sports.

Betfair could stop trap bettors easily. Betfair could target traders easily. And if you are certain that the only other people on here who make PC liable money are insiders, maybe you should pass your magic radar onto Betfair so they can stop them too. It is a tax on winners, plain and simple.

You are one of the "few people" I mention in my previous post. I would guess most of the non-insiders paying it are betting ir. I don't think betfair wanting a minimum 20% of people's profits is unreasonable but I suppose in your case there's every chance you'll pay it and hit a bad run with no chance of a rebate. That is unfair.

There are other things that grate with this whole episode.

Betfair said they want to take money off people who immediately take money out of this site. As a layer I leave my money in here, as the bigger my bank gets, the more lays I can theoretically make. This would be another marker of traders compared to gamblers. Traders probably work off smaller banks, constantly withdrawing chunks- so why not reward people who leave large amounts of money in their accounts in some way.

There are other rewards and incentives they could offer to individuals who are wrongly affected by the charge. While treats and trinkets will not make up for the £31k I have paid out in PC so far, they would be nice. In the 8 years I have been here, the only thing I've been offered is a day at the races some 250 miles from where I live. A quick look at my account would tell them I have no interest in horse racing.

If they really didn't want to target gamblers with PC it wouldn't take long to come up with ways of, at the very least, sweetening the pill, or better still, streaming them away from it altogether.

Betfair have used many "justifications" regarding this matter depending who they speak to.

It apparently is used to target traders, insiders, cheats, hooverers, trappers, bot users, people who who have decent strike rates, people who win "too easily"

Of course if this were the truth (it obviously isn't), they could do so without potentially clobbering just about every other user who has the cheek to have a decent run (lmao at the idea that someone who cheats would be deterred by "only" having 80% of their winnings instead of 95% - do betfair return the other 15% to the victims of the cheating - pigs might fly!)

There is one thing in common with whatever excuse they come out with....


















It's a complete pile of crap. The only reason is "they are a virtual monopoly and they can do what they damn well please"

Saying this wouldn't make what they do any more justifiable, but it would at least be honest.

inner city sumo, I operate i a way similar to you.
I put this question to Betfair. Although I made a lot of money on here all of it has been reinvested.

The only withdrawals I've made so far, have simply been
part of what I deposited in the first place. Despite paying close to £10k PC in 2009, I haven't actually realized a penny of the profit for myself, so obviously I cannot be draining liquidity.

Then Betfair came with the real reason, to paraphrase: "Those that win a lot and pay a small amount in total charges, will continue to bet, even if those charges are increased.".

That's fine, but rather than all that spin, I would have preferred an open and honest policy, that simply stated the real reasons for the premium charge, rather than making excuses.

By the way, even someone laying at (very) long odds without an edge, is likely to incur PC before it all comes crashing down.

Templeton Peck, what helps in lowering PC is using your money on very low or no yield strategies that you normally wouldn't consider.

The PC has the unnatural effect of rewarding you for decreasing efficiency. In betting as in investing, it's not just how much you make that matters, but also how much risk you took to make it (which gives you an idea of how sustainable your current levels of profit are).

Given a choice between winning on average:

Choice 1) £25k per month (after commission) on markets and losing £10k on markets

Choice 2) £50k per month (after commission) on markets and losing £35k

Given only this information any rational person should choose choice 1. If this person was then told how the PC works, they should choose the 'inferior' choice 2. In the case of choice 2, you would still pay PC, but not as much, and your commission rate will be lower as well.

If you pay PC, and expect to continue to pay PC, you are effectively no longer paying commission. You have instead entered into a profit share agreement with Betfair.

What this means is that as a PC payer, you can ignore the effects of commission on your bets. For instance, lets say that in a particular football game you lay 1 goal or more in total goals at 1.13. Now you have the choice to back at 1.15 or lay 0-0 in correct score at 7.6.

If you choose to lay 0-0 (which is the equivalent of backing one goal or more at slightly better than 1.15), you can ignore the loss due to commission, as this will reduce your PC by the amount that you lose.

However, if you are using large stakes relative to your total bank, this may not work, as the increase in exposure means you can't trade effectively.

Anyway, the conclusion is this:

As a PC payer, you can ignore commission. This also means that if you place a straight bet where you believe you have a 1% edge, it's worth doing (the fact that you lose after commission doesn't matter).

It gets a little more complicated than that, but that's it in a nutshell.

The premium charge is aimed fair and square at users that extract cash from the exchange so efficiently that they generate insufficient revenue to cover betfair's costs.

How dare they? The cheek of it! I'm off straight to purple if I ever get charged. You should join me too.

Shadow Ministry of Misinformation and Self-Interest still needs new members...

The premium charge is aimed fair and square at users that extract cash from the exchange so efficiently that they generate insufficient revenue to cover betfair's costs.

It's debatable whether that is even true.

In any case, some PC payers don't extract any cash from the exchange. Like I said, I have withdrawn £0.00 of my profit since joining in mid 2006.

I'm just pointing this out, not asking betfair to change anything. The charge raises uncertainty for the future. How will Betfair increase it's charges in the next few years and beyond?

Betfair is still the best betting exchange by a fairly wide margin, with or without the PC, so switching isn't a good idea (for me at least).

It is unfortunate that stealth charges are not taken into account (Betfair's cross matching for instance). It's not just 'losers' who find themselves on the wrong side of this. If I want to back at 1.03 in a market with 2 selections and I can instead lay the inverse at 34, I may choose to back at 1.03 in certain circumstances, taking into account the likelihood of my bet getting matched.

Every cloud has a silver lining, and in the case of the PC, it has spurred me on to achieve a higher commission discount rate.

In any case, some PC payers don't extract any cash from the exchange. Like I said, I have withdrawn £0.00 of my profit since joining in mid 2006.

Are you saying that you pay PC on a regular basis even though you're losing / breaking even?

Or are you saying you won some money, you did it so efficiently that you paid charges for your troubles. The money was yours - extracted. You then proceeded to gamble your winnings away.

The really nutty thing about the pc is this. Suppose betfair didn't deduct normal commission and just deducted/rebated after every market so that all winners paid 22.5% of their overall profits. Each Wednesday they then calculated what each person would've paid under the old system for the previous week. If that amount was more than what had already been deducted the customer would be billed for the difference.

1) Everyone would pay more or less what they're paying now.

2) The only people who wouldn't be billed on a Wednesday would be the current pc payers.

3) The current pc payers would stop moaning.

4) Everyone else would start moaning because they'd then realise they were subsidising the middlemen leeches that make up the bulk of 3).

I don't suppose any pc whingers would like to address this post.

The premium charge is aimed fair and square at users that extract cash from the exchange so efficiently that they generate insufficient revenue to cover betfair's costs.

I can't believe people fall for this kind of hokum just because Betfair says it's so. What exactly are these costs?

If it's the costs of maintaining the servers and managing large volumes of data traffic then why not just expand the data charges so bots that hit Betfair with lots of transactions get charged an amount proportionate to the volume of data they generate.

If they're talking about the advertising costs of attracting new commission payers, does that mean that their advertising doesn't create enough income to pay for itself?  If so, their advertising must be incredibly inefficient to need the massive amounts generated by the PC.

I will say one thing in favour of premium charge. It's not right that a big winner with high turnover pays 2% commission on winning bets, and an habitual loser with medium turnover pays a higher rate of commission.

FFS what's wrong with a flat rate of 3% commission? Anyone with high turnover doing his brains can then be rebated 1/3rd of his commission over a period.

The Investor, thanks for getting back to me.  I understand what you're saying and it's pretty much what I've been thinking.

I've only been working on here for 6 or 7 months (old account but was only for an occasional punt) and paying PC for about 6 weeks so still learning new things as I go along.

Fred, what I'm saying is that the money I have won over the years has been used to increase my bank. My bank is now many multiples of what it was when I started.

When you say extracted, I thought you meant realized, as in withdrawn. Perhaps I misunderstood you.

As I have been increasing my bank exponentially, I would say that both Betfair and myself would be better of if PC was deferred until you withdraw (realize or extract if you will). That way my bank grows faster, the amount of commission I pay increases at a faster rate, and the PC still stands at the same level. The only way Betfair lose out is if I lose everything (or at least a very large chunk) in the future. I'm making the assumption here that most PC payers, will continue paying PC in the future.

Perhaps Betfair have already factored this in, and there are other things I'm failing to consider.

Good luck with that Templeton Peck.

Just to finish of, the best possible position to be in ignoring your commission discount rate, is not to be a PC payer, but to be someone generating just over 20% commission. That way you pay the smallest part of your GP to Betfair relative to everyone else, but still get the full benefits of your commission charges.

Investor, with reference to my 09:34 post, why should pc payers have the bulk of their contributions deferred until withdrawel and not other winners? PC payers would appear to be a special case inasmuch as they pay a lower percentage of profit in commission than everyone else but why should they be made an even bigger special case? Why would betfair defer the charges for those that generally contribute zilch in real liquidity so that they can contribute 1.2 * zilch?

So that they can make money by way of additional interest or commission on the money before it leaves the site. Given the choice of 'just PC' or 'Interest then PC' I'm surprised Betfair don't take the latter.

Having money in your account means it can still be lost. As they offer no rebates Betfair premium charges on the assumption that money cannot be lost. Only when it is withdrawn from here, can it not be lost on here.

ICS, I would imagine they fear the build up of cash in a pc payer's account which is then 'lost' to a non pc paying account (e.g. by laying 1000 a 1.01 shot in a quiet market) which is the only reason they don't give rebates.

I think we all know there is another reason why they don't give rebates...

Likewise the sample size on which any charge is calculated is hypocritically short, absolutely fatal in terms of alienating gamblers. They are interested in charging lifetime winners- so confident are they that these individuals are lifetime winners, that they choose to charge them on a weekly basis. If they are so confident in the abilities of these permanent winners, why such a narrow timeframe? Why not monthly, quarterly, half yearly? By doing it weekly of course they are also more likely to catch the regular punter who has a very big and flukey win.

Ok sorry Investor, we both misunderstood, not to worry.

If your bank is growing exponentially then you're in a good place, PC or no PC lol

I don't see that at all ICS. If they weren't leaving themselves open to abuse I'm sure they'd have introduced rebates and there would be no Wednesday deduction as they'd deduct/rebate pc's after each market. Making the period more than a week would make it all the more likely there'd be accounts in negative balance at settle up time.

Why would the accounts of supposed lifetime winners be in negative balance? By keeping the sample/timeframe size small they reap as much as possible, and catch as many people as possible. That is why they do it.

Let's say they made the period a year. If you had a year of pc's to pay would you not be tempted to withdraw your balance before betfair docked your account? You could then open an account in a different name. While you could do that every week it's obviously a lot more trouble and you'd run out of names. If their sole intention was to catch as many people as possible they'd never have changed it to lifetime profit.

Why can't they permit you to withdraw everything except that which you may expect to pay in charges, a retained charges figure?

Feck N. Eejit Joined: 10 Jan 02
Replies: 1185 21 May 10 15:47 
Investor, with reference to my 09:34 post, why should pc payers have the bulk of their contributions deferred until withdrawel and not other winners? PC payers would appear to be a special case inasmuch as they pay a lower percentage of profit in commission than everyone else but why should they be made an even bigger special case? Why would betfair defer the charges for those that generally contribute zilch in real liquidity so that they can contribute 1.2 * zilch?


I'm not saying it should only be PC payers. Incentivising certain winners to keep their funds in their account would be good for many customers (and for Betfair). The only thing to consider is the likelihood that these winning customers go on to lose at a later stage. Which means that deferred charges would disappear. Naturally, this chance is much lower with PC customers than marginally profitable ones (although there are exceptions).

To work out how this could be done optimally would be quite a task, but I think Betfair would be well served in doing so. It's win-win.

I daresay they think the temptation to 'lose' the profit to a non pc paying account would be greater when there was a years charges there. I suppose you can adopt that avoidance method anyway, it just requires you do the 'losing' in advance. e.g. two accounts, one bets team A @2.0 for 100K the other bets the opposing team +1 on the asians @ 2.0 for 100K. The winning account pays commission on 100K. The losing account can be used to win up to 100K trading.

Investor, you didn't address the point that most pc payers don't supply liquidity.

Surely that depends on how liquidity is defined. If it is defined as a pool of money to bet into everyone on here provides liquidity.

Passing money across is a risk whatever timeframe is used. Either way, far from incentivising gambling, the PC disincentivises it. As a gambler I would now gladly swap what I do with peaks and troughs for any system or strategy where I constantly win and pay 20% a week off it. Gambling or any kind of risk is now pointless on here, whereas trading now isn't, it will be an exceptionally irritating overhead no doubt, but it would be one you could consistently reckon upon.

You could define it as sh1t if you want but it won't make it sh1t. Are you saying that if they did away with the pc so that troy would only have to pay 40K on his next million then that's an incentive to gamble BUT if troy has to pay 200K on his next million then that's an incentive to follow in his footsteps. Most gamblers were unaffected by the pc so why would gamblers consider gambling pointless because traders are being made to pay nearer to their fair share?

Feck N. Eejit Joined: 10 Jan 02
Replies: 1187 21 May 10 19:19 
Investor, you didn't address the point that most pc payers don't supply liquidity.


I don't know if that is true. You seem to be convinced that the bulk of PC payers are the kind of traders who jump in front of your bet at a slightly better price and get matched what would have gotten matched without their presence anyway? I'm not sure that this is the case.

How does PC incentivise gambling when one week you win x, the next week you lose x, and pay up to 0.2x from the week before?

Why should I care less what Troy does or doesn't do? This charge was never implemented to catch just traders, because they can be better identified by their strategy and staking patterns rather than their win rate. It is a charge for anyone who wins at a certain rate.

As a gambler I find that the existence of the charge makes me want to avoid a gambling strategy that involves peaks and troughs. It reduces the incentive to take risks and persist with a strategy with peaks and troughs because as a gambler there is nothing to say I will never hit that damning succession of troughs. In that sense I would gladly swap what I do now for something with far less risk, something where you can calculate exactly what is going on, a 20% charge on every green screen you create.

BTW ICS, you do realise that if you do have a losing run then it will mean you won't have to pay pc until you're back in the position where total lifetime commission paid is less than 20% of lifetime profit? It's just that you've been here since 2002, are in lifetime profit and paying pc so why is it you suddenly expect to lose and be incapable of coming back?

But if I do wipeout I will have paid all that PC on the assumption I am a lifetime winner when I am not!

Similarly, I think the moment you start believing it's impossible to lose, or that you will always be able to make money then you really are in trouble. There are plenty of things that can go wrong. The money in my account is not truly won money until it is out of the account!

But if I do wipeout I will have paid all that PC on the assumption I am a lifetime winner when I am not!

I've paid a bigger percentage of my winnings in commission than you have. If I wipout does anyone give a sh1t about me? Also, if you make a winning comeback after your wipeout you could be paying as little as 5% of your profit for some time. If I make a winning comeback after mine I'll get no period of grace. I'll still be paying 25% +.

And there will be someone who has paid 99.99% of their winnings in commission- are you really saying everyone should pay the same rate?

The fact that people pay different rates out of their winnings is not a justification for the charge. You follow that to the logical conclusion then no one will be allowed to win at all because there will always be someone paying more of their winnings in commission than you. When the charge goes up to 80% you could be on the other side of this having this conversation with Mr 99.99%.

Im saying I'm in a wose position than you are. How many years did you get away with paying a single figure percentage of your profit? Wouldn't you be better off supporting something like my default turnover scheme than pining for the days when traders got a free lunch?

PS All winners paying the same percentage and losers paying nothing would be the fairest way of doing it but the percentage would be so big it would mean an exodus to another exchange.

Yes, you are in a worse position than me. And there are people in a worse position than you- where do you draw the line though because you can keep on moving it until the point where the whole endeavour is pointless.

I've actually only been relatively profitable in the last 21 months, I was only allocated an account manager a year ago, so if anything I would have been paying a much higher rate of commission than you for at least six of my years here, and a lot of the time I was operating at a loss.

I've not looked at the other thread yet. I will when this one has died down. By the sounds of the title it sounds similar to what I have mentioned earlier regarding being able to identify traders from the reciprocity of their bets.

There's little point in talking about identifying traders as bf are not going to let the trappers, hooverers and insiders go back to the free lunch and they're all one sided players.

In my last post I wasn't talking about identifying traders though, I was saying a system based on turnover would have similarities to such a process.

To be honest I'm not in the business of caring what anyone else pays in commission. If I really cared about what other people win or lose then I wouldn't be going about trying to win money off them on a gambling site in the first place.

I care what others pay in commission because the lower the commission is for them the more there will be for me to win from. My worst scenario therefore is a commission system that rewards trading and penalises gambling. Betfair's old statem did that and the current system, while fairer, still does that while its complexity deters new customers.

*old system

Making regular winners pay more doesn't affect the kind of people you are matching with though, nothing has changed for them. You are looking to match bets with people who don't know what they are doing, their commission structure hasn't changed in any way, because they aren't regular winners.

There's already been two increases in the commission points bands that led to an increase in regular commission. Incredibly they both happened while others were in the 5th or 6th year of getting free lunches. I know of some gamblers who left because of those increases. If taking away the free lunches puts off further increases then that's a positive.

Irrespective of those changes, the people you are looking to match with are always at the bottom of the structure: if they were paying 5% commission on winnings before, they're paying 5% still. In any real sense none of the PC money has made a difference to them. And if anything, more of those casual punter types have been deterred from entering the fray by the clumsy application of PC in the first place.

I think given Betfair's track record you'd have to be naive to believe that the existence of the PC in any way is going to stop Betfair from introducing other charges or ruses against any of their client base.

Why would I only be looking to get matched with 5%ers? Do you think everyone on 2% is a winner?

I think you're the one being naive in thinking there's any chance of betfair going back to the free lunch era just because you fear a losing run. You're on the wrong thread. You should be on the other one supporting a default turnover system. Then your casual punters would have no reason not to enter the fray.

Where do I say I think Betfair will go back to the old system? I know they won't. I'm saying the current one is a mess. I anticipate more charges in a variety of ways for everyone on the site, certainly not fewer charges.

It is a mess, that's why you should be supporting the default turnover scheme so prospective customers are protected from it.

If it costs Betfair any money relative to what's already in place it will be a non-runner, even if it is a more appropriate model.