Now there are people who think it is unfair that so much of their profit goes in commission.  They probably think that, because they have contributed so much to Betfair's profits without getting anything in return, that Betfair should somehow help them.  But that is like someone, who is a regular loser with a bookmaker, asking for some of his money back every now and again, simply because he is "a good customer".  The world doesn't work like that. And it shouldn't.

As far as traders filling in holes goes, if a trader lays me a grand at 2.0 and covers a layer's lay of a grand at 2.02 what hole has he filled in? In the trader's absence I'd have been matched directly with the layer at either 2.0 or 2.02 such that one of us would be better off and the other no worse off. If the time gap between the trader's opening and closing transaction is considerable then yes he's supplied liquidity but outwith in-play you could engrave the names and addresses of traders that operate that way on an ant's balls so if you think Adam Heathcote's filling in holes and supplying liquidity with his ping-pong backs and lays a few seconds apart (as he seems to think) then you're all very much mistaken. All such traders do is match an existing offer and put it back up a few seconds later at worse odds. If you think traders are filling in holes and creating liquidity in early price markets then how come nobody even bothers looking at them because the liquidity is so bad? Why couldn't they fill in the holes in the purple place's markets when they organised a walkout?

The only people who think middlemen are important are middlemen. The internet offered an opportunity to rid ourselves of such parasites but instead betfair's city boys have created a whole new breed of the fkrs.

*here

The trader's opening transaction would've been to take either my or the layer's bet out first (probably based on queue momentum) and then putting the offer back up at worse odds. You can say I or the layer have only ourselves to blame, we should've been quicker etc. etc. but it's irrelevant. The point is the trader filled no hole.

If the trader took down the layer's bet and put it back up a few seconds later at worse odds in what way has my chance of being matched increased? If the layer's offer of 2.02 was showing then I'd ask for 2.02 but even if I submitted at 2.0 I'd get matched at 2.02 if the layer's offer was still there. Of course if the trader loses out of the trade then he's done us a favour but if you've got to resort to examples of losing trades to show the worth of traders you're digging yourself into a hole rather than demonstrating how traders fill them in.

"If you can get to the point where you are making 500k a year on her then handing over 100k of that 500k would not really be so painful. You'd still have the remaining 400k to soften the blow. If you were earning a million a year and had to give up 200k of  it to Betfair, then so what? You've still got the 800k left. It's less tax than you would pay if you were earning those amounts from an ordinary job"

I'd go along with that to an extent.

However, if I made £20k or so in 5 years and had to pay a large part of it to Betfair, which is far more likely to happen to someone paying PC, I'd be pretty annoyed.

turtleshead, that is a very good point. They now apply the PC based on your total profits since joining. And there are people who joined long before the charge was even thought of. Its like the government deciding to raise taxes for the next year, then deciding to back date them 8 years, and then trying to take this out of people's paypackets at 20% each week.

But half the time the "trader" will lay your bet instead of the layer's lay. You might not have been matched otherwise.  And if the the trader accommodated the layer, instead, you still might get matched very soon.

Are we back to the losing trade example again? If not, why would I not have been matched?


You should think of the horse's odds as a commodity to be traded, just like sugar, gold or shares in a company. Its just like the stock exchange, really.  As I said earlier, this is why it is called a betting "exchange".  The traders aren't necessarily tories or city boys, and not necessarily evil. They just do what they do to make a profit.  They just play the game within the rules. They don't make the rules.

On the stock market everyone's a trader. You don't buy shares on the basis that in 5 or 10 minutes time they'll either be worthless or worth x times what you paid for them.

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?

Why do you think that so many of the smaller markets have so little money in them now? Pretty obvious really, it's because very few who might have an edge and specialize in them have an incentive to put up prices to try and beat the 20%+ PC.

Why do they have to beat the 20% PC? It's 20% of long term profit. What's to beat FFS. If you don't show a profit, you don't pay it. If you do you get to keep around 80% of it.

I'm afraid you're the imbecile turtleshead. Why don't you give us all a laugh and try addressing my 12:10 post?

I think this has less to do with PC, and more with data request charges. I can't help but think Betfair have shot themselves in the foot there.

Even though I only use the website, without bots, refresh scripts or API products, my activity got large enough to go into data request charge territory.

Usually I don't need to worry about this, because my commission is easily large enough to offset this.

However, because Betfair are now offering a large number of games in play prior to the start of the main season (most of them with poor liquidity), my profit per game has dropped substantially to the point where it is so low, that I have to curtail my betting!

For each football game, I have six browser windows open. If I make markets in some game that hardly anyone is interested in, knowing that the £hundreds or or even £thousands I sink into those markets will lead to a profit expectancy of less that £5, it's not worth it for me, because it can lead to data request charges.

I'm sure others like me, along with bot users are unable to seed markets for the same reason. It's still a little surprising, because the 2% commission users could easily do this. Why they don't is a mystery to me.

I know it's not a lot of money, but if you have spare cash just sitting in your account, you should always put it to work, no matter how small the reward. Betfair have now curtailed my activity and along with it, their own profits. I paid £30 data request charges in two days yesterday and the day before, and refuse to pay this anymore.

Unlike PC, I can make the choice not to pay DR charges, leading to lower profit to Betfair.

I know the point of DR charges is to stop bot users shooting hundreds of requests bogging down the server, but legitimate betting in a large number of markets is inadvertently affected by this.

"Why do they have to beat the 20% PC? It's 20% of long term profit. What's to beat FFS. If you don't show a profit, you don't pay it. If you do you get to keep around 80% of it"

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.

CLYDEBANK29, good points there, for me DR charges make a big difference to how I can operate though.

turtle, PC doesn't work as you described. BF don't take 20% of your winnings, they take 20% of winnings-losses, it's a very important difference. In 2009 I paid more PC than commission. It works out that if I paid that much only in commission on winning bets my rate would have been about 9%, so Betfair take 9% of winning bets, not 20%. The only way they would take roughly 20% of your winnings in PC, is if you won all your bets. Still a lot though!

Avocado, the idea is that if I'm spending time on here trading, I might as well use that time to make an extra £5 (as trading in more markets at the same time makes me a little more money, without requiring more time).

My aim is to compound my profits, which I have been doing since I started (although I'm struggling to better 2009's results at the moment). Compounding means that every extra £1 I make today, will keep on adding incremental benefit for as long as I can use an increasing level of capital.

You keep talking about these "no lose traders"  What about the fella who just bets on here?

He bets on a couple of events a week(but has a decent bet when hes confident) over the long term he picks pretty well and over a long period is up. 

Now with the premium charge he might win ten grand one week (and has to pay 2000 quid) the next week he loses ten grand.  He's level yet hes down 2000 pounds.

oldbigead, I agree there's people caught up in it that shouldn't be. If the person you describe is a long term winner then at least with the pc being based on lifetime profit that 2K deduction will ensure he won't be paying it on his next round of profits. That doesn't help the guy who just got lucky though. I've suggested in the past that the default commission system should be turnover based (which would probably suit your guy) and people who this wouldn't suit (includes myself) would have to 'opt-in' to the more complex commission schemes. It all falls on deaf ears where betfair's city boys are concerned.

Feck N. Eejit Joined: 10 Jan 02
Replies: 1759 07 Aug 10 18:30 
I stopped betting because I was going to be charged the pc because of result sequences. I felt this was unjust as I had already paid over 22.5% of my lifetime profits and, as I had already been subsidising traders and cheats for 8 years, I didn't see why I should pay more because their plan to get the aforementioned to pay their fair share was flawed. As for the rest, I think it's more about a dislike of delusional p1ss takers than philanthropy. Bob sums it up well.


Just been reading back over the thread and saw this post.
Now that its based on lifetime profit, you are betting here again?
The current system is still flawed with regards to result sequences. If a winning week is followed by an equally losing week, your still down because of the back-dated charge. Yet, if a winning day is followed by an equally losing day, your evens.....

And what of these traders who aren't paying the charge?

I was betting for 5 or 6 months of every flat season. The season before the pc was introduced was a really good one. I had already paid well over 20% of my lifetime profits in commission but, because of the previous good season, I could've been in the exact same situation had I been showing a lifetime loss. I recall Troy boasting on the forum that pre-pc he had made a million and paid just over 40K (4%) commission making that million. So after subsidising Troy and his mates for 8 years I, and many people like me, were expected to pay more just because of the sequence of our results. I chose not to.

Incidentally, pre-pc Troy (and a few other traders) thought it was hilarious when betfair effectively increased every non 2%er's commission rate with their supposed "broadly neutral" commission points band changes (to accomodate these ridiculous "betfair holidays") and their later band changes to cancel out inflation (what difference is an extra grand or two per million going to make). Yet you traders can't understand why we gamblers have no sympathy for the fact you generally continue to pay a much lower percentage of your profits in commission than we do. Oh, I forgot. The fact you get to hang on to most of your commission until a Wednesday makes it more, doesn't it?

W@nkers.

Player A has 100 1 unit backs @ 1.10 and all win.

Player B has 100 1 unit backs @ 110.0 and 1 wins.

Both players have 100 bets, 100 units turnover and make a pre-commission profit of 10 units.

Under the old system (assuming they're both on the same commission rate) player B would be charged 10.9 times the commission player A would be charged. You think that's fair?

PS Spare me the sh1te about player B being penalised for not being efficient.

That's inevitable when you have a commission system based on profit, rather than stake. B knows this beforehand. It's also compensated for by long dog exchange prices being significantly better than any book on average, whereas the best price on heavy favourites are almost never at betfair.



Premium charge is a tax on the more successful, subsidising the incompetent masses. I suppose that's why you're so happy with it, like a benefit scrounger.

Thing is Feck, now you've got what you want I can't see how it's benefitted you in anyway

You're assuming that if they had left it the way it was they wouldn't have upped the normal commission rates. When they next decide they want more money then they have an option, in the shape of the 'all new liquidity generating premium charge', of increasing the percentage of profits traders and cheats contribute without affecting true liquidity providers (mainly gamblers) in any way.

That's inevitable when you have a commission system based on profit, rather than stake.

Not if it's based on long term profit.


B knows this beforehand.

Presumably A's now aware of the pc beforehand.


It's also compensated for by long dog exchange prices being significantly better than any book on average, whereas the best price on heavy favourites are almost never at betfair.

What have prices elsewhere got to do with it? What you describe in any case is down to the fact that the lower the price the lower the percentage the bookmakers take in their favour. e.g. If the go 50.0 about a 100.0 chance they win 50p on every pound. How do they manage that with a 1.1 chance? Go 0.55 it?


Premium charge is a tax on the more successful, subsidising the incompetent masses. I suppose that's why you're so happy with it, like a benefit scrounger.

It's a crude method of making traders and cheats pay a fairer share. Since it falls short in that respect and is also a deterrent to new customers, who may well find it too complex, I'm not at all happy with it. There are no bigger scroungers on here than the traders and cheats.

so there is nowhere else you can place a bet?