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
General Betting
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
19 May 10
12:41
Joined:
Date Joined:
10 Jan 02
The current commission scheme would scare the sh1t out of anyone considering opening a betfair account, even someone with a maths degrees. All new customers should start out on a very simple turnover based commission scheme e.g. 2-3% of stake (see note 1 below). Such a scheme wouldn't deter your average punter if he was expecting better odds and would also suit the occassional punter. Also, in many cases it would yield more commission for betfair than they currently expect, especially where those on this scheme bet several contestants in the same event.
Obviously such a scheme wouldn't suit many of us (myself included) and would decimate liquidity were it compulsory so we would all be able to choose to opt in to a more complex scheme (e.g. similar to the current one) at any time.
IMO, the more complex scheme should favour liquidity providers rather than traders/cheats/insiders as it does now. I would therefore suggest the premium charge for this scheme be based on the following formula
Premium Charge = (GrossProfit - 5 * CommissionGenerated) / x.
If the average gambler is paying say 30% of their overall profits in commission it would seem only fair that traders should pay at least that. Setting x = 3 (or even hitting them with x = 2 and taking 50% of their profits to punish their non-supply of liquidity) would acheive that. We all know they've nowhere to go anyway because they've nothing to offer.
1) I said 2-3% of stake to keep things simple but obviously that would deter backing/laying odds on/against shots so it would be better if it was 2-3% of the minimum of the backer's and layer's liabilities.
2) Betfair would reserve the right to force certain customers into the more complex scheme as the small turnover scheme would suit the cheats and insiders who aren't greening up but who rarely lose. Personally I think they should be weeded out but betfair seem to think a 20% slice of the action is worth losing cheated clients for.
3) The existence of the default turnover scheme would save betfair from the black propoganda regularly put out these days by the pc leeches (e.g. "what's the point in getting 20% better odds if the commission's 20%"). Everyone would be aware the default commission was a negligable 2.5% (or whatever) and that the leeches actually chose to opt in to the pc scheme.
Obviously such a scheme wouldn't suit many of us (myself included) and would decimate liquidity were it compulsory so we would all be able to choose to opt in to a more complex scheme (e.g. similar to the current one) at any time.
IMO, the more complex scheme should favour liquidity providers rather than traders/cheats/insiders as it does now. I would therefore suggest the premium charge for this scheme be based on the following formula
Premium Charge = (GrossProfit - 5 * CommissionGenerated) / x.
If the average gambler is paying say 30% of their overall profits in commission it would seem only fair that traders should pay at least that. Setting x = 3 (or even hitting them with x = 2 and taking 50% of their profits to punish their non-supply of liquidity) would acheive that. We all know they've nowhere to go anyway because they've nothing to offer.
1) I said 2-3% of stake to keep things simple but obviously that would deter backing/laying odds on/against shots so it would be better if it was 2-3% of the minimum of the backer's and layer's liabilities.
2) Betfair would reserve the right to force certain customers into the more complex scheme as the small turnover scheme would suit the cheats and insiders who aren't greening up but who rarely lose. Personally I think they should be weeded out but betfair seem to think a 20% slice of the action is worth losing cheated clients for.
3) The existence of the default turnover scheme would save betfair from the black propoganda regularly put out these days by the pc leeches (e.g. "what's the point in getting 20% better odds if the commission's 20%"). Everyone would be aware the default commission was a negligable 2.5% (or whatever) and that the leeches actually chose to opt in to the pc scheme.
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 48
|
By:
The crusade continues ,great stuff Feck,keep it up.
PS ,you still blaming referees for that losing bet you had ? |
|
By:
more options == more intimidating
The PC is intimidating, but as 99%+ have nothing to fear it seems reasonable to keep it hidden away in a clause that most users are unlikely to see. I remember fearing PC when it was first introduced, that was probably more down to hysteria on this forum than my lack of understanding. Just need to hide some of these PC payers in a clause too. They might be scaring away potential customers who would otherwise be adding value for me. |
|
By:
Just need to hide some of these PC payers in a clause too. They might be scaring away potential customers who would otherwise be adding value for me.
Exactly Fred. I can't agree with the rest of your post though. Why do they have to see the alternative commission scheme any more than they see the pc details now? If they do come accross it they'll feel a lot more secure knowing they'll never be hit with it unless they request it. |
|
By:
The crusade continues ,great stuff Feck,keep it up.
Glad you think so frames. You clearly know it makes sense going by the fact your posts never extend beyond a failed quip. PS ,you still blaming referees for that losing bet you had ? No surprise to find you're a h u n affiliate. |
|
By:
spread on how long betfair would last as a going concern if feck's ideas were put into practice in weeks:
0.6-1.1 |
|
By:
You mean we'd have another walkout of the famous liquidity to the purple site pres.
 Even if that was a worry (and it isn't) the simple fact is they could introduce it without changing any current user's circumstances. It's a measure of the general stupidity of pc payers that they loathe the pc only second to death yet they cannot see that it must deter new customers. |
|
By:
I'm selling at 0.6, by the way.
|
|
By:
You'll already have bought at 0.5999 then?
|
|
By:
As always the quality of argument from you 'sharp minds' is strictly pantomine stuff.
|
|
By:
I remember fearing PC when it was first introduced, that was probably more down to hysteria on this forum than my lack of understanding.
Same here Feck. Having said that, when I turned purple it was just as much out of principle than the prospect of paying any of my winnings to this f*****d up 'invention'. As for purple, I can easily get accommadated on a saturday for a good few quid, (laying or backing). Each to his own, but I think BF will come to there senses and get rid of this charge in the near future. (albeit pleasing the ping pong merchants who are happy to trade back and fore to get their fiver). As for frames being a hun, I would doubt it very much when his favourite colour is green. (like his spectacles)...... As for frames being a hun, trust me |
|
By:
**Pass on that last sentence, although I'm sure I could add to it!!!
|
|
By:
stewarty, there's a dog's chance and none that betfair will let the leeches go back to a free lunch. When they finally realise it's damaging them they'd be far more likely to adopt something similar to my suggestion.
If frames is a left footer then his ridiculing of pro-Rangers refeeing bias in Scotland at best makes him an uncle tom. |
|
By:
If frames is a left footer then his ridiculing of pro-Rangers refeeing bias in Scotland at best makes him an uncle tom.
Feck, frames wouldn't understand any of that. Having said that, he had a pop at me on another forum until I finally had to show him what a 'proper bet' was. Sadly these people will be around for a long time yet.... |
|
By:
I remember it now Stewarty ,filed under "thick as pigsh1t" ,£100 at 6/1 ,lol if that`s a proper bet I hope you have a job to fall back on.
You are correct in me not understanding the ,hun,uncle tom and left footer quotes ,I do however understand that blaming referees for your teams failure makes you both look pathetic at best. |
|
By:
frames Joined: 11 Jan 02
Replies: 3924 19 May 10 19:55 I remember it now Stewarty ,filed under "thick as pigsh1t" ,£100 at 6/1 ,lol Aye frames, and to think I could have greened up at 1.1...... Keep sticking your liquidity in frames. I for one wont notice it. |
|
By:
I do however understand that blaming referees for your teams failure makes you both look pathetic at best.
Why didn't you raise that on the appropriate thread where I was backing my argument with logic uncle tom? This is a serious thread that's attempting to address some of the damage you whingers have done to betfair. |
|
By:
racinguru, I don't think m@tchbook's idea of paying the matchmaker would work. It's fine when you want people to put up odds in empty markets but in a busy market when the back and lay are hard up against each other it could cause a staring contest as it actually penalises the person who breaks first and edit's their offer to accept a worse price.
|
|
By:
*paying the marketmaker
|
|
By:
racingguru, it wouldn't subsidise traders if it just charged both sides 1% either and people making books in quiet masrkets are traders anyway (albeit supplying a bit of liquidity). The difference between being paid to put up your bets and being charged 1% of turnover is massive. It may not matter to your average punter but it would to anyone trying to make a profit. In any case, I don't really see why the pc would put anyone adept at making books in quiet markets off.
If there was a government exchange monopoly, the fairest way of doing it would be to charge all winners a much larger percentage of their winnings while scrubbing normal commission altogether (I don't think there's any chance that would work in a non-monopoly situation though). What would the current pc payers make of that given that they're whinging just now about paying less than everyone else? |
|
By:
The only thing that would worry me is that the top PC payers on betfair (account by account) are not traders, they are position takers.
It sounds to me like taking betbrokers business model and applying it to betfair to start with. They did very poorly with that model on their first attempt - although I'm not sure why, I thought it was a good scheme but just like betfair you need enough mugs to make it work, perhaps they just didn't get enough mugs. Is it about making things "fair" in your eyes Feck, or is it about maximising profits? I'm not clear. |
|
By:
I'm not really sure what it is you're referring to TU. Are you talking about the opening post? The main point of that post is that betfair should have a default small turnover commission system that won't scare off new customers. It needn't affect any existing customers although I'd doubt the top pc payers are position takers (at least of the type that matter).
|
|
By:
*It needn't affect any existing customers. I'd doubt the top pc payers are position takers (at least of the type that matter).
|
|
By:
punish non-supply says the man who got so annoyed by the unfairness of winning more every year that he stopped betting here!
perhaps we should extend this laudable concept (it's up there with worldwide 99% tax) and immediately confiscate the first £500 deposited by each new account holder to ameliorate their previous refusal to supply liquidity. |
|
By:
This is a serious thread that's attempting to address some of the damage you whingers have done to betfair.
blimey! now whingers have ruined betfair! this thread is a metaphorical ritual disembowelment. seriosu threads call for serious measures. |
|
By:
You seem to be confusing traders paying their fair share with punishment although I'm aware that's a common trait among your kind.
Most of betfair's negative publicity comes from pc whingers on this forum. |
|
By:
Tangent
feck u made the guardian yesterday re tote dodgy numbers |
|
By:
I seen it Capt F. A couple of people pasted the article on to the relevant thread. Don't think much of their excuse and I've yet to hear from them. I suspect that's because I'll be questioning their reply.
|
|
By:
Off track Feck, but same thing today. I backed Kirsty's mount in the second at Yarmouth today at 11.5 and gets beat after trading odds on.
 When will this nightmare end?? (rant over) |
|
By:
stewarty, I have had 8 week runs where you could count the number of winning days on one hand. In such spells it's hard to believe that outside forces aren't at work but it's a case of if a monkey can type out the works of Shakespeare in chronoligal order then .......
All you can do is wait for it to turn. Isn't it tragic that it's the middlemen leeches who don't have to suffer such misery who are betfair's pets? |
|
By:
Christ, that's a long time Feck. Anyways, I remember having a large bet on a horse approx. 4 years ago at 3/1 on here and it went clear after the last and I was counting nearly 8K, only for it to be caught on the line. I think it traded at a low of 1.03. So p!ssed off was I that I `posted it on horseracing only to be told by a few 'sharp minds' that I should have layed it off. I told them where to go, but hardly slept that night as to what might have been . However, as you will know if I was to lay off every bet I placed before the off at say 1.2, and let it ride, that's akin to taking under the odds of every horse I back.
As for your losing run Feck, is it a bit of bad luck, chasing, or a mixture of both? (obviously you always bounce back due to your strategy?) |
|
By:
Just an inevitable statistical blip stewarty because I'm more into the bigger prices (not always though). When your average punter is having a good run I'm inevitably having a bad one. If ir was a level playing field laying off wouldn't be a bad strategy as I hate the fact that betfair is win only (at least in the sense that I don't have the time to manualy drip feed into both the win and place markets - the place market is also lacking in liquidity). As things stand though you'd only be contributing to the course nomarks leaving up ir lay offs.
|
|
By:
19 May 10 12:41
taking 50% of their profits to punish their non-supply of liquidity 21 May 10 09:25 You seem to be confusing traders paying their fair share with punishment seems you are confused. should betfair have been taking money from your account for each day you've sat on the sidelines pouting about unfairness to punish your non-supply of liquidity? |
|
By:
Not confused at all. I didn't advocate 50%, I suggested if the average gambler was paying 30% they charge that but the option was there to increase that (without affecting gamblers) if they wanted to encourage them to supply liquidity.
I've lost out on a year's profits. Is that punishment enough for taking a stand that none of you whinging t0ssers did. |
|
By:
Not confused at all. I didn't advocate 50%, I suggested if the average gambler was paying 30% they charge that but the option was there to increase that (without affecting gamblers) if they wanted to encourage them to supply liquidity.
You explicited suggested the possibility of punishing traders and then accused me of confusing punishment with paying a fair share when it was the term you had chosen to use yourself - rank hypocrisy and you can't even bring yourself to admit it even when it is quoted. I see you haven't used the year off to mend your ways. I've lost out on a year's profits. Is that punishment enough Not sure. It might be a bonus. We'll how much you would have lost (or possibly won). Are you back now? It matters nowt because with your mentality you'll never be happy anyway. You could win millions and you'd still be a grumpy sod. For you to complain about whingers really takes the biscuit. You have cornered the market where that is concerned. |
|
By:
You explicited suggested the possibility of punishing traders and then accused me of confusing punishment with paying a fair share when it was the term you had chosen to use yourself - rank hypocrisy and you can't even bring yourself to admit it even when it is quoted. I see you haven't used the year off to mend your ways.
Usual boring semantics. Save them for your new banking friends on the UltimateBackslappersForum. Not sure. It might be a bonus. We'll how much you would have lost (or possibly won). Are you back now? It matters nowt because with your mentality you'll never be happy anyway. You could win millions and you'd still be a grumpy sod. We go through life burying our loved ones until it's our time to quite possibly be wiped into oblivion. Hapiness is a state of mind open only to simpletons and only a real simpleton would equate it to money. For you to complain about whingers really takes the biscuit. You have cornered the market where that is concerned Apart from this recent slapping down of those whinging about paying less than everyone else the only complaining I've done on this forum for a while is on the 'Every night before I sleep' thread. I suppose that would offend your sensibilities given your new found friends. |
|
By:
Did tou get anywhere near the Scoop 6 testerday Feck?
|
|
By:
I had 5 out of 6 (as usual) stewarty. Believe it or not the one I didn't get was Balducci as my tissue made it bad value (I take it it was the pricewise horse)? Glad Mcarthur didn't win leg 5 as I'd have beat myself for a lot more.
|
|
By:
I'm surprised at the lack of support for a default turnover commission scheme. I guess everyone (including betfair) have become complacent. Beats me how they manage to replace the ir brain deads with the current complexity in place.
|
|
By:
It works fine at the 1% site, in fact it works out cheaper for me surprisingly often, and I'm a PC payer.
|