General Betting
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 255 comments are related to the topic:
Premium charge dispute - any lawyers out there?
Premium charge dispute - any lawyers out there?
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 255
|
By:
Feck N. Eejit Joined: 10 Jan 02
Ticket tout looks at ticket queue, reckons concert will be a sell out, bungs his man on the desk to get him a block of tickets. Sell the tickets online such that he can only guess ticket sales and he can't operate. Reduction in ticket sales? Nah. Not saying that describes you catfloppo but "my bot places bets and if it didn't there'd be a reduction in liquidity" is deserving of a LOL and well you know it. Feck, it is painfully simple that if I stop placing bets there will be a reduction in liquidity. The ticket tout analogy doesn't work because there are a limited number of tickets available for a concert event. There is no such limit here, my bot can sell as many 'tickets' as there are buyers and by offering better prices the number of buyers that come to betfair is increased. This effect is compounded by having lots of bots tussling for the first few places in the queue and, guess what, they need to see the queue to operate. |
|
By:
Ah another PC thread taken over by Feck .He just goes on and on and on an...............
|
|
By:
"i m not a lawyer but have met quite a few,the 20 % is a justifiable amount,if you are consistently winning ,then giving betfair 20% is correct,actors/footballers/etc all pay agents commission"
You forget the minor detail that all these categories will be making huge sums of money. The most disgusting thing about the pc is that it can hit you as soon as soon as you make 6k profit, or, for most normal people, around 10k, no matter if that takes you many years! Many fewer people would moan if it just hit someone who made 50k in a year, and then got 10k tax, still leaving them with 40k as a result. If everyone was allowed to make, say 10k profit each year before being assessed that would be slightly more bearable, but 6k lifetime is just a sick joke. Very small stakers who have been on the site for many years suddenly get charged despite averaging maybe a fiver profit a day, how can that possibly be justified? That ludicrous "200 markets" criteria, ensures that 99.999% of people can qualify. It's absolutely disgusting. |
|
By:
i]Feck, the reason recreational punters wdn't want to match yr bets is that you are better than they are and are on average getting a good price (and giving them a bad price).[/i]
The same thing happens near the off askari although by then they're probably more likely to get matched by someone who's aware their horse is p1ssing with sweat. Horse consequently drifts ............. Punters also suffer from 'confirmation bias'. If they lay a horse to you and it starts off much shorter, they will feel (probably correctly) that they were wrong to bet so soon and wd do better to wait until prices have stabilised 'next time'. See above. Incidentally, this confirmation bias means that if they fancy a horse and it shortens in price, recreational punters will feel that is a justification for backing it. If it runs second, they will think 'they got a run for their money' and that it was a good bet, not that it was badly-priced and lost. Surely you'll agree then that the more stable the prices are (as they would be using the auction system) the less losers will feel agreived as they are far more likely to get matched at odds that are about to drift under the current system. |
|
By:
Feck, it is painfully simple that if I stop placing bets there will be a reduction in liquidity. The ticket tout analogy doesn't work because there are a limited number of tickets available for a concert event. There is no such limit here, my bot can sell as many 'tickets' as there are buyers and by offering better prices the number of buyers that come to betfair is increased. This effect is compounded by having lots of bots tussling for the first few places in the queue and, guess what, they need to see the queue to operate.
That's not really the case catfloppo. If I want to back at 5.0 and a 'tout' nicks in front of me and causes the price to shorten such that I no longer consider it value all that happened is the tout got the bet instead of me. His liquidity replaced mine, that's all. I don't expect betfair or the person on the other side of the bet to care that a copy-cat was matched instead of me but it doesn't follow that the copy-cat friendly interface resulted in more liquidity. |
|
By:
Ah another PC thread taken over by Feck .He just goes on and on and on an...............
Frames, the pc discussion ended ages ago. It was effectively over when I posted this Once again we have the "it is an injustice it is" calimeros complaining about paying a lower percentage of their profits in commission than everyone else. Why will none of them address the following? Suppose they deducted 22.5% of your lifetime profit as a running total making deductions / rebates after each market was settled and then each Wednesday they calculated what you would've paid under the old system and, if that was less than you'd already paid, docked the difference from your account (i.e. they're swapping over the normal and premium charge deduction times). Then 1) Everyone would pay more or less what they do now 2) The Ferengi wouldn't have a Wednesday payment 3) Almost all gamblers would have a Wednesday payment 4) Gamblers would be up in arms at having to subsidise the mainly worthless Ferengi. 5) The only people who wouldn't be whinging would be the Ferengi. Can any calimero please tell us why the Wednesday people should have more money deducted? as no pc payer was willing to address it. |
|
By:
No Feck, you want to back at 5.0, the 'touts' dive in and pretty soon the site is offering 4.5. This is much more likely to get matched than your 5.0 had it been left in the front of the queue. More liquidity = better prices = more matched bets = more commission
|
|
By:
No Feck, you want to back at 5.0, the 'touts' dive in and pretty soon the site is offering 4.5. This is much more likely to get matched than your 5.0 had it been left in the front of the queue.
No. The tout took the bet I would've took. I'm now out of it. The now shorter price is now more likely to be laid but less likely to be backed. More liquidity = better prices = more matched bets = more commission When something shortens the others lengthen and the book's still 100% so I'm at a loss as to how the copy-cat taking my bet has resulted in either more liquidity or better prices. |
|
By:
Feck still whinging about these evil "touts" daring to offer a better price than he is I see
 |
|
By:
Tell me how they're offering a better price turtleshead and give us all a good laugh.
|
|
By:
Because if they didn't they wouldn't get matched and they'd be wasting their time?
Really very simple to work out, even for you |
|
By:
Feck, you're suggesting that a bot would undercut one bet in a market already running at 100%? Surely you realise that wouldn't happen. While the bots were undercutting your 5.0 they would be doing the same thing on the other runners leading to a tighter market with better prices all round.
|
|
By:
Because if they didn't they wouldn't get matched and they'd be wasting their time?
And what about their closing out bet turtle. Do they give better odds on that as well to close out for a loss?[/i] Really very simple to work out, even for you |
|
By:
Feck N. Eejit Joined: 10 Jan 02
When something shortens the others lengthen and the book's still 100% so I'm at a loss as to how the copy-cat taking my bet has resulted in either more liquidity or better prices. If that's the case, you're correct. But if someone that jumps in front of you causes the spread to shorten, rather than moving the price, he is adding value. |
|
By:
Feck, you're suggesting that a bot would undercut one bet in a market already running at 100%? Surely you realise that wouldn't happen. While the bots were undercutting your 5.0 they would be doing the same thing on the other runners leading to a tighter market with better prices all round.
Nah catfloppo. The market could be at 100% with a build up of money on the right hand side of one runner. The touts back the horse realising it's about to shorten and maybe they'd lay the rest expecting them to lengthen as a result of that one shortening. After it shortens they reverse their bets to close out at a profit. There's nothing added. I don't know where these "better prices all round" are coming from. A price that's better for a backer is worse for a layer and vice versa. If you're talking about more efficient prices, if we all wanted that we'd be campaigning for a tote monopoly. |
|
By:
Ah, we are talking at cross purposes then, I thought we were talking about bots.
|
|
By:
Feck, why wd a system of auctions result in more stable prices? Suppose that the early priceline is still heavily informed by RP forecast and any early bm odds. Why wd pricing anomalies still not correct over the course of a number of auctions?
To some degree, I take yr point about the recreational punter being as well off losing to form study in the am as to paddock-watching before the off. But it is the case that by the off the direction in which a horse is trading is probably established for a casual punter. It is either steaming, drifting or fluctuating in a band. The exception are the pronounced v-shapes produced by bf traders, but the peak-trough in these 'v's means much more to the trader and winning punter than it does to the recreational player. The casual player, as I see it, (leaving out the poss. of endemic corruption) is always likely to be better off betting into a well-formed market. This is always likely to be near the off. 'Little and often' has got to be the maxim of the winning price-taker. I also feel that bf has largely superseded conventional backing and price-taking as an optimal way of winning. |
|
By:
If that's the case, you're correct. But if someone that jumps in front of you causes the spread to shorten, rather than moving the price, he is adding value.
If you change the last word to liquidity then I wouldn't disagree with that Investor but there's not many gaps to fill in the last few minutes and few bother with the £2 leap frog in the morning. There's still nothing there that makes the current interface superior to the auction system. Much as they'd like us to believe otherwise short term middlemen don't supply any significant liquidity and their absence from an auction exchange would be a positive for gamblers. |
|
By:
I thought the discussion included bots catfloppo.
|
|
By:
Me too Feck but a bot can't realise odds are about to shorten.
:p |
|
By:
Why not? You don't think bot users are shouting instructions to them?
|
|
By:
He he. Mine are deaf!
|
|
By:
Feck N. Eejit 22 Aug 10 12:35
Frames, the pc discussion ended ages ago. It was effectively over when I posted this Once again we have the "it is an injustice it is" calimeros complaining about paying a lower percentage of their profits in commission than everyone else. Why will none of them address the following? Suppose they deducted 22.5% of your lifetime profit as a running total making deductions / rebates after each market was settled and then each Wednesday they calculated what you would've paid under the old system and, if that was less than you'd already paid, docked the difference from your account (i.e. they're swapping over the normal and premium charge deduction times). Can any calimero please tell us why the Wednesday people should have more money deducted? as no pc payer was willing to address it. Your suggestion means that someone who breaks even before commission pays nothing to use the site right? Great idea.... A pc payer was willing to address this post on another thread - and even kindly adapted it for you so that it made sense. If someone jumps in front of you, you are not providing the market with the fairest prices. As such, you could be draining the pool quicker than the horrid person who jumped in front of your bet. Why does betfair need gamblers like you feck? The person who jumped in front of you then decides to lay off the original bet. Although he only 'replaced' your liquidity in the first place (bear in mind that fecks liquidity was worth a bit less than the queue jumper's liquidity, since fecks offer was a bad one) he is now providing more liquidity to the market by matching more bets. Meanwhile, feck is nowhere to be seen, way back in the queue, not providing any liquidity. Blotted out by people offering better value odds and more chances, throughout the existance of the market, to bet again. Why does betfair need gamblers like feck who aren't getting their bets matched anyway? And feck, when you do get your 'liquidity reducing' bets matched, why do you get to keep 100% of your profit after commission, even though potentially you may have taken a much more substantial amount out the pool than a trader? There are people who spend a lot of time making sure that the markets are efficient, making sure that people like feck don't drain the pool too quickly. To do this they must take more risk and provide more outlay. For this service to betfair's customers, they are penalised? Yet, for feck's rip-off service, which only provides the market with ONE piece of bad value liquidity, it is rewarded by a lower commission rate and no charge on profits! Why? Feck, if you want to rip someone off, you can't then complain that someone else is offering to rip them off a bit less painfully can you? Feck, you can use the interface yourself to get the prices you want on a horse if you just open your eyes. This interface that you purport to be so evil, has all the characteristics you need to get any price you want if you are willing to put the work in. Or is that just it, you don't want to put the work in. You seem to spend so much time on the forum, one would think that you have a dedication streak to you. Why not put it to better use and work with what you have right in front of you? I'll tell everyone what you want feck... - Feck loses 100 and then wins it back. - Feck says 'No, no, don't charge me commission on that, they weren't my real bets, wait until I win one more bet than I lose, then just charge me 5% of that bet. I want to use the system for free until I make a profit and then you can start charging me.' These posts by you feck, 22 Aug 10 12:55 22 Aug 10 14:45 suggest that you are too immature to work out what this exchange is all about and how to use it to your advantage. My post is already too long (again) to let people know why you are wrong, but consider this... The only reason for a price movement is opinion. You seem keen on psychology feck, opinions affect opinions effecting opinions affecting opinions effecting opinions etc...... Oh, I almost forgot, why don't some traders pay the premium charge feck? |
|
By:
Turtleshead, you make some very valid points. 6000 lifetime is absurd along with the 200 markets rule. Completely unfair, what if someone does game betting for example, they could probably do that in a day! If there was a realistic competitor to bf with a similarly good interface, then bf would steadily decline in liquidity. However, that's not the case, on the whole bf have a reliable service, amazing market choice and good liquidity. There are no viable competitors.
|
|
By:
Your suggestion means that someone who breaks even before commission pays nothing to use the site right?
No. You've totally missed the point of the post. Everyone more or less pays what they do now, only the collection times have changed. A pc payer was willing to address this post on another thread - and even kindly adapted it for you so that it made sense. I think not. It already made sense to anyone who took the trouble to read it. If someone jumps in front of you, you are not providing the market with the fairest prices. As such, you could be draining the pool quicker than the horrid person who jumped in front of your bet. Why does betfair need gamblers like you feck? If there's no gap in the spread (as is usually the case at the times I'm betting) in what way am I not providing the fairest prices? If someone takes down an offer on the other side and puts it up at worse odds why should anyone be grateful to him? I don't have a problem with genuine gamblers jumping in front of me. The person who jumped in front of you then decides to lay off the original bet. Although he only 'replaced' your liquidity in the first place (bear in mind that fecks liquidity was worth a bit less than the queue jumper's liquidity, since fecks offer was a bad one) he is now providing more liquidity to the market by matching more bets. Meanwhile, feck is nowhere to be seen, way back in the queue, not providing any liquidity. Blotted out by people offering better value odds and more chances, throughout the existance of the market, to bet again. Why does betfair need gamblers like feck who aren't getting their bets matched anyway? No. In his absence I would just have been matched with the layer and one of us would've got better odds. This idea that ticket touts add seats to concerts is ridiculous. And feck, when you do get your 'liquidity reducing' bets matched, why do you get to keep 100% of your profit after commission, even though potentially you may have taken a much more substantial amount out the pool than a trader? I don't. That would only be the case if they were refunding my losing bets. There are people who spend a lot of time making sure that the markets are efficient, making sure that people like feck don't drain the pool too quickly. To do this they must take more risk and provide more outlay. For this service to betfair's customers, they are penalised? Yet, for feck's rip-off service, which only provides the market with ONE piece of bad value liquidity, it is rewarded by a lower commission rate and no charge on profits! Why? Who are these altruistic sainted individuals? If they take more risk why doesn't it show in their commission generated figure? How can someone be penalised if they pay a lower percentage of their profits in commission than everyone else? Under what criteria is my "service" a rip-off? Feck, if you want to rip someone off, you can't then complain that someone else is offering to rip them off a bit less painfully can you? If I have a bet and some middleman is sitting between me and another gambler who was ripped off less painfully? Feck, you can use the interface yourself to get the prices you want on a horse if you just open your eyes. This interface that you purport to be so evil, has all the characteristics you need to get any price you want if you are willing to put the work in. Or is that just it, you don't want to put the work in. You seem to spend so much time on the forum, one would think that you have a dedication streak to you. Why not put it to better use and work with what you have right in front of you? I'll tell everyone what you want feck... - Feck loses 100 and then wins it back. - Feck says 'No, no, don't charge me commission on that, they weren't my real bets, wait until I win one more bet than I lose, then just charge me 5% of that bet. I want to use the system for free until I make a profit and then you can start charging me.' On the contrary, it's the pc calimeros who want to go back to the free lunch. These posts by you feck, 22 Aug 10 12:55 22 Aug 10 14:45 suggest that you are too immature to work out what this exchange is all about and how to use it to your advantage. My post is already too long (again) to let people know why you are wrong, but consider this... The only reason for a price movement is opinion. You seem keen on psychology feck, opinions affect opinions effecting opinions affecting opinions effecting opinions etc...... Your long winded retort to a post you've clearly not read or don't have the intelligence to understand suggests you're the one who has difficulty with exchange betting. Your just another delusional, self-important trader who thinks the word 'trader' gives you some automatic right to mega respect and that we should all be beholden to you for your non-existent "liquidity". Get over yourself man. Just like your city counterparts you're little more than a ponce. |
|
By:
Once again we have the "it is an injustice it is" calimeros complaining about paying a lower percentage of their profits in commission than everyone else. Why will none of them address the following?
Suppose they deducted 22.5% of your lifetime profit as a running total making deductions / rebates after each market was settled and then each Wednesday they calculated what you would've paid under the old system and, if that was less than you'd already paid, docked the difference from your account (i.e. they're swapping over the normal and premium charge deduction times). Can any calimero please tell us why the Wednesday people should have more money deducted? |
|
By:
Feck still spouting pc crap again, he must have an alarm built in to his computer programmed to go off whenever someone posts
|
|
By:
How do turtleshead? Are you still paying 20% commission on every winning market with no respite given for losing ones?
|
|
By:
How do Feck?
Are you still claiming that traders aren't essential to betfair despite the fact that if the entire lot vanished tomorrow there would be next to bugger all liquidity in the markets? |
|
By:
turtlesbrain, when the pc was first introduced they did disappear over to the purple site where they were given an introductory offer whereby many payed only 9% of what they would pay on betfair. No one on here (or the purple site for that matter) noticed any difference. Have you ever seen a ticket sale where the only queuers were touts?
|
|
By:
blah blah blah ticket tout blah blah blah parasite blah blah blah ferengi blah blah blah not providing liquidity blah blah blah city boy...
Can't be arsed to do the rest. |
|
By:
Your in-depth logic is way above my head turtlesbrain. It's no wonder you traders are the masters of the universe.
|
|
By:
Where did I ever say I was a trader, out of interest?
|
|
By:
You mean you're not even a trader, you're just a trader lover
. It just gets nuttier an nuttier. Come to think of it, it's hard to imagine anyone who writes sh1te like this could ever be a winner.turtleshead Joined: 01 Jan 05 Replies: 2400 10 Aug 10 23:34 What an utterly ludicrous argument. So it's fine to pay out 100% of losing bets but only keep 80% of winning ones. But that's okay because you have made a profit. Using that logic what's wrong with keeping only 20% of winning bets? Or maybe a bookmaker paying you out at 4/5 instead of evens when you have a winner because you are on a good run? Still a profit, isn't it? Laughable, but no more than we have come to expect from Feck. |
|
By:
turtleshead, I apologise. I've been a bit hard on you on this and the other thread.
|
|
By:
If you have an excellent run with much larger stakes then normal, it is perfectly possible to pay quite near to 20% in PC, can you not see this?
|
|
By:
In some markets I place more than one bet, does this make me qualify for your much despised "trader" label?
If so, well over half the people on here must also....  |
|
By:
If you have an excellent run with much larger stakes then normal, it is perfectly possible to pay quite near to 20% in PC, can you not see this?
Yes, but I already addressed this point earlier in the thread. Allowing all traders and cheats to use the site practically free of charge is not a viable solution to the problem. |
|
By:
You shut down the cheats, it's pretty easy to spot people with a ludicrous strike rate, say by laying 100 odds on shots from a stable, if they have 90 correct, 80 of which run accountably badly it's safe to assume they are cheating or placing the bets for someone who it.
As regards the "traders" (you still haven't defined what constitutes this category btw), you charge them 5% per winning bet, same as gamblers, and everyone else who uses the site, how are they using it "practically free of charge"  |
|
By:
Because 5% per winning bet rewards high strike rates and penalises low strike rates. I put up an example earlier where there were two customers with the same turnover, number of bets and net profit yet one was charged 11 times what the other was. If traders want an accross the board charge why do they never advocate it be based on turnover?
|