General Betting
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
Hi, does anyone out there have any useful input they can offer about a Premium Charge dispute with Betfair?
I stopped using Betfair early last year when the poor initial implementation of the premium charge made it unusable. As I couldn't use the site, I taught a friend how to use my strategy and referred them to Betfair. They ran into the Premium Charge pretty quickly and had to close their account before the second (non-refundable charge) was due.
I have an overall lifetime loss, so was recently persuaded to come back to Betfair by their Outbound team as I ould would not longer be subjected to the weekly threat of the charge. Soon after returning, Betfair withdrew my friend's charge from my account without notice, saying that they were entitled to do so because our accounts were linked by referral and strategy.
I can't help feeling that this practice must be illegal. Does anyone have any useful previous experience of this with Betfair, and any expertise in this area? Thanks.
I stopped using Betfair early last year when the poor initial implementation of the premium charge made it unusable. As I couldn't use the site, I taught a friend how to use my strategy and referred them to Betfair. They ran into the Premium Charge pretty quickly and had to close their account before the second (non-refundable charge) was due.
I have an overall lifetime loss, so was recently persuaded to come back to Betfair by their Outbound team as I ould would not longer be subjected to the weekly threat of the charge. Soon after returning, Betfair withdrew my friend's charge from my account without notice, saying that they were entitled to do so because our accounts were linked by referral and strategy.
I can't help feeling that this practice must be illegal. Does anyone have any useful previous experience of this with Betfair, and any expertise in this area? Thanks.
Show More
Feck is quite rightly p1ssed off because it's difficult to get bets on for the mountain of parasites (including bookies) that feed off the price information on here.
I really like the idea of invisible bets but it's never going to happen.
I really like the idea of invisible bets but it's never going to happen.
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.
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.
feck hated "subsidising traders" so much that he continued to do it for 8 years.
I will unfortunately have to continue doing so until a gambler orientated exchange comes along.
I will unfortunately have to continue doing so until a gambler orientated exchange comes along.
Betfair is more or less the only place to bet if you want to make a long term profit in sports betting, live in the UK and bet in your own name. Poker is obvioulsy different.
The worldwide gambling market is not open enough and the UK market is only bigger enough to fund a limited amount of winnings and winners.
The worldwide gambling market is not open enough and the UK market is only bigger enough to fund a limited amount of winnings and winners.
Feck is quite rightly p1ssed off because it's difficult to get bets on for the mountain of parasites (including bookies) that feed off the price information on here.
I really like the idea of invisible bets but it's never going to happen.
Glad to have you on board Clydebank. It will happen but not here.
I really like the idea of invisible bets but it's never going to happen.
Glad to have you on board Clydebank. It will happen but not here.
Invisible bets, dark pools etc. would make the markets less efficient.
Having visibility allows you to put your money to work where it is most likely to get matched.
I can't see it working as most 'leisure punters' will not understand it. There are plenty of people who can't even get there head round laying.
Having visibility allows you to put your money to work where it is most likely to get matched.
I can't see it working as most 'leisure punters' will not understand it. There are plenty of people who can't even get there head round laying.
ijs, OK Mazza 
Why would winning gamblers want efficient markets Investor? All visibility does is feed copycats, middlemen and spoofers. Volatility and the first come first served rule hampers liquidity. As for leisure punters not understanding it
, what's to understand? It would make the interface so much simpler. Obviously a lot of people wouldn't like it because it would be the end of their careers.
Why would winning gamblers want efficient markets Investor? All visibility does is feed copycats, middlemen and spoofers. Volatility and the first come first served rule hampers liquidity. As for leisure punters not understanding it
, what's to understand? It would make the interface so much simpler. Obviously a lot of people wouldn't like it because it would be the end of their careers.
Feck, I have to disagree with you on this: If they can't see the prices available against the horse, people wouldn't bother typing in a bet. Also, they wouldn't be able to see market moves. It would be like the old days on course, in which the rails bookmakers were not allowed to show prices. This meant that people left the members enclosure to place a bet on the boards. But once the rails could display their odds, their business boomed to such an extent that the original boards bookies were complaining about lost revenue. Surely you rely on seeing the odds displayed in front of you, like everyone else. And, if you are one of the few people who don't need to see the odds, why should things be changed just to suit you?
Visibility does feed copycats and middlemen, but it's essential. Automated bot copycats and bot middlemen are not essential though and that's all that bots are. Banning bots goes halfway towards banning parasites.
baconONtoast
Joined: 01 Jul 10
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.
Nonsense, most of the more successful users don't pay it.
Joined: 01 Jul 10
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.
Nonsense, most of the more successful users don't pay it.
Marksman, I'm talking about a series of private price auctions which increase in frequency the nearer we get to the event. The odds bets were matched at in previous auctions would be available for all to see. Only the amounts involved would be hidden. This would result in less volatility and in each individual auction everyone would be matched at the same odds. First come first served is also abondoned. If 3 people want to lay a grand at 2.0 and 3 people want to back at 2.0 for 1K, 2K and 5K then each of the backers would be matched for 1K. Insiders would no longer be able to monopolise betting on their entry by continually undercutting everyone else.
Note also you can put up a bet of any size without spooking the market away from you (all or part unmatched bets just fall through to the next auction unless cancelled). This would result in an increase in liquidity.
Feck, no way would that increase liquidity. It would immediately stop a large proportion of the use base operating and then the punters would drift away because the prices would not be so good.
Feck N. Eejit Joined: 10 Jan 02
Replies: 1777 19 Aug 10 09:45
ijs, OK Mazza Sad
Why would winning gamblers want efficient markets Investor? All visibility does is feed copycats, middlemen and spoofers. Volatility and the first come first served rule hampers liquidity. As for leisure punters not understanding it Laugh, what's to understand? It would make the interface so much simpler. Obviously a lot of people wouldn't like it because it would be the end of their careers.
Of course winning gamblers (or traders for that matter) don't want efficient markets, as that would mean it would be impossible to make money with skill (only luck). I was talking from Betfair's point of view.
The profits generated on Betfair are effectively split between Betfair and its profitable customers. The more efficient the markets are, the larger the proportion of the profit that goes to Betfair relative to winning punters.
Replies: 1777 19 Aug 10 09:45
ijs, OK Mazza Sad
Why would winning gamblers want efficient markets Investor? All visibility does is feed copycats, middlemen and spoofers. Volatility and the first come first served rule hampers liquidity. As for leisure punters not understanding it Laugh, what's to understand? It would make the interface so much simpler. Obviously a lot of people wouldn't like it because it would be the end of their careers.
Of course winning gamblers (or traders for that matter) don't want efficient markets, as that would mean it would be impossible to make money with skill (only luck). I was talking from Betfair's point of view.
The profits generated on Betfair are effectively split between Betfair and its profitable customers. The more efficient the markets are, the larger the proportion of the profit that goes to Betfair relative to winning punters.
I wouldnt want to be the guy that writes the Betfair press release for Fecks "hiding the queue" idea.
"Weve decided to hide the amounts available, not sure why, but you now wont be able to see the amounts on a market. so there. We are also considering hiding many other functions of the website such as the my markets menu and the forum. rest assured we will have a forum Q&A session before any of these features are hidden"
"Weve decided to hide the amounts available, not sure why, but you now wont be able to see the amounts on a market. so there. We are also considering hiding many other functions of the website such as the my markets menu and the forum. rest assured we will have a forum Q&A session before any of these features are hidden"
It would immediately stop a large proportion of the use base operating and then the punters would drift away because the prices would not be so good.
catfloppo, The only ones it would stop would be the ones that don't matter.
Investor, a tote would be even more efficient. Do you think that would maximise betfair's commission or liquidity? Betfair don't seem too bothered about the massive inefficiencies in the ir markets and some of them are even betfair given.
catfloppo, The only ones it would stop would be the ones that don't matter.
Investor, a tote would be even more efficient. Do you think that would maximise betfair's commission or liquidity? Betfair don't seem too bothered about the massive inefficiencies in the ir markets and some of them are even betfair given.
I think you really, genuinely want that to be true Feck. Unfortunately it isn't.
Robin Ewe, you missed out hiding the jockey's colours from the race cards. At the moment, there are people (who, incidentally, don't matter) who don't buy the Racing Post, yet are still able to compete (on the IR markets) on an equal footing with those valuable customers who do buy the post.
Why do you think a tote would be more efficient? The fact that someone like Alan Woods was able to make £tens of millions despite an 18% rake, suggests that it is nowhere near as efficiently priced as on a betting exchange with decent liquidity.
I agree that Bf (and other exchanges) are designed in a way that has 'built-in inefficiencies' though.
It's patently obvious that if you remove a large number of users from the site liquidity will be dramatically reduced. The reason betfair encourage bots is because they flood the markets with cash, more bets are matched and they consequently make more money. Just because you disapprove morally of the users you wish to see excluded from the site doesn't mean they don't contribute to its success.
I disapprove morally? Of traders? I think they're parasitic but it's hardly burn in hell stuff. I have absolutely nothing against liquidity providing bots and I'll be using one myself when I'm ready but the auction idea almost does away with the need for them as you can submit any size of bet in a oner. I'm still at a loss as to who these liquidity providers are that would jack it in. IMO the auction idea would aid rather than hamper them. Still, when I'm at the exchange to come submitting large bets on early markets feel free to stick with the £2 leap frog.
Investor, I don't think betfair markets are that efficient (on horse racing at least). Racing in this country is so corrupt though that the same money going into a pool would have to be more efficient.
"Weve decided to hide the amounts available, not sure why, but you now wont be able to see the amounts on a market. so there. We are also considering hiding many other functions of the website such as the my markets menu and the forum. rest assured we will have a forum Q&A session before any of these features are hidden"
I wouldn't like to be the guy that wrote that either since it's blatantly untrue. BTW you missed out hiding the jockey's colours. What a jolly good wheeze you and Marksman are.
I wouldn't like to be the guy that wrote that either since it's blatantly untrue. BTW you missed out hiding the jockey's colours. What a jolly good wheeze you and Marksman are.
Ok, perhaps that's true, but it definitely would be less efficient for football and other sports where the effects of fixing and other forms of cheating are much less noticeable.
Feck, if you don't disapprove of parasitic middlemen, shell and pea merchants, spivs etc etc then your choice of language and terminology does you a dis-service.
I would not be able to operate without being able to see the existing bets and I contribute liquidity to a wide range of markets. I am one of many in this situation there would immediately be a massive drop in liquidity if you ever had your way with the site.
I would not be able to operate without being able to see the existing bets and I contribute liquidity to a wide range of markets. I am one of many in this situation there would immediately be a massive drop in liquidity if you ever had your way with the site.
I disapprove of cheating catfloppo (although I've also said I don't blame them for doing it) but I'd hardly say calling traders parasitic middlemen equates to moral disapproval (at least they don't expect the government to bail them out if they hit a losing streak). On the other hand I do disapprove morally of betfair's accomodation of cheating in the name of liquidity. It will come back to haunt them one day.
Ignoring the cheating, there are too many people making money out of sports they don't have a clue about and I don't see how anyone who requires the queue to be visible to operate would be supplying liquidity that wouldn't be there anyway were the site to operate in auction fashion.
Ignoring the cheating, there are too many people making money out of sports they don't have a clue about and I don't see how anyone who requires the queue to be visible to operate would be supplying liquidity that wouldn't be there anyway were the site to operate in auction fashion.
Take a look at the 'spineless betfair layers' on the horse racing forum.
I suspect that the auctions would price-find w/out much money changing hands, just the same as the early market leapfrog.
I hold out more hope for a series of frozen tote pools w/ advertised prices and a decreasing takeout as the pools got nearer to the event.
How long before the people on the wrong side of feck's bets learn they shd wait until nearer the off?
I hold out more hope for a series of frozen tote pools w/ advertised prices and a decreasing takeout as the pools got nearer to the event.
How long before the people on the wrong side of feck's bets learn they shd wait until nearer the off?
askari, why would it make any difference to them if they're on the wrong side of my bets early or a few minutes from the off? What makes you think everyone wants to wait until a few minutes from the off to bet when they're at a further disadvantage due to not being able to see the horses in the paddock or going down? People say all the early layers were fleeced and stopped putting up. I'd be only too happy to lay early on if there was a sensible interface.
Ignoring the cheating, there are too many people making money out of sports they don't have a clue about and I don't see how anyone who requires the queue to be visible to operate would be supplying liquidity that wouldn't be there anyway were the site to operate in auction fashion.
Are you saying that someone that makes money in this way doesn't supply liquidity?
Are you saying that someone that makes money in this way doesn't supply liquidity?
It wasn't exactly what I said but anyway, in many cases they don't, in some cases (e.g. market making in quiet markets) they do.
Feck N. Eejit Joined: 10 Jan 02
I'd hardly say calling traders parasitic middlemen equates to moral disapproval
LOL
Ignoring the cheating, there are too many people making money out of sports they don't have a clue about and I don't see how anyone who requires the queue to be visible to operate would be supplying liquidity that wouldn't be there anyway were the site to operate in auction fashion.
I have a bot. It looks at the bet queue and places bets. Make the queue invisible and it can't place any bets. Reduction in liquidity.
I'd hardly say calling traders parasitic middlemen equates to moral disapproval
LOL
Ignoring the cheating, there are too many people making money out of sports they don't have a clue about and I don't see how anyone who requires the queue to be visible to operate would be supplying liquidity that wouldn't be there anyway were the site to operate in auction fashion.
I have a bot. It looks at the bet queue and places bets. Make the queue invisible and it can't place any bets. Reduction in liquidity.
I have a bot. It looks at the bet queue and places bets. Make the queue invisible and it can't place any bets. Reduction in liquidity.
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.
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.
Information wants to be free
Who cares what it wants. The question is, does giving it out aid or hamper liquidity. IMO it undoubtedly deters a lot of real liquidity as illustrated by the tumblewwed early markets.
Who cares what it wants. The question is, does giving it out aid or hamper liquidity. IMO it undoubtedly deters a lot of real liquidity as illustrated by the tumblewwed early markets.
Feck....IMO it undoubtedly deters a lot of real liquidity as illustrated by the tumblewwed early markets.
Are you claiming that the reason the majority of punters don't bet at 7am in the morning for the 3:15pm at haydock is because they can see the Queue?
Are you claiming that the reason the majority of punters don't bet at 7am in the morning for the 3:15pm at haydock is because they can see the Queue?
I guess you're referring specifically to horse racing.
The only reason I rarely put money up early on a football game, is that it leads to a much lower yield than churning my money through the games that are occuring now or very soon.
The only reason I rarely put money up early on a football game, is that it leads to a much lower yield than churning my money through the games that are occuring now or very soon.
Are you claiming that the reason the majority of punters don't bet at 7am in the morning for the 3:15pm at haydock is because they can see the Queue?
I would've thought the majority of punters don't bet at 7am in the morning (is there another 7am?) because it's 7am.
I would've thought the majority of punters don't bet at 7am in the morning (is there another 7am?) because it's 7am.
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).
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'.
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.
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'.
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.
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,betfair have to advertise and pay andy gray 500k a year ,they have to get this money from somewhere.
apparently when gee sun park has the ball at old trafford and the betfair advert is flashed up on the pitch side boards - there is instantly 200k bet within next 1 minute and thats just in korea.
all bots/traders/winners need punters,the winnings must come from somewhere.
the queue is a red herring,they are queuing for profit not for a back/lay,they are in the queue only at that price,which is a price that gives them a profit as they ve already traded,no punter/backer or one off layer queues for a better price - he bets or dosent - all queuers are traders/bots.
apparently when gee sun park has the ball at old trafford and the betfair advert is flashed up on the pitch side boards - there is instantly 200k bet within next 1 minute and thats just in korea.
all bots/traders/winners need punters,the winnings must come from somewhere.
the queue is a red herring,they are queuing for profit not for a back/lay,they are in the queue only at that price,which is a price that gives them a profit as they ve already traded,no punter/backer or one off layer queues for a better price - he bets or dosent - all queuers are traders/bots.
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.
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.
Ah another PC thread taken over by Feck .He just goes on and on and on an...............
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
Feck still whinging about these evil "touts" daring to offer a better price than he is I see
Tell me how they're offering a better price turtleshead and give us all a good laugh.
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
Really very simple to work out, even for you
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Ah, we are talking at cross purposes then, I thought we were talking about bots.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I thought the discussion included bots catfloppo.
Me too Feck but a bot can't realise odds are about to shorten.
:p
:p
Why not? You don't think bot users are shouting instructions to them?
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
Feck still spouting pc crap again, he must have an alarm built in to his computer programmed to go off whenever someone posts
How do turtleshead? Are you still paying 20% commission on every winning market with no respite given for losing ones?
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?
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?
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?
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.
Can't be arsed to do the rest.
Your in-depth logic is way above my head turtlesbrain. It's no wonder you traders are the masters of the universe.
Where did I ever say I was a trader, out of interest?
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.
. 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.
turtleshead, I apologise. I've been a bit hard on you on this and the other thread.
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?
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....
If so, well over half the people on here must also....
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.
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.
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"
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"
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?
"Traders" (whoever they are?) aren't asking for an across the board change to a 5% flat bet fee, just pointing out that it would be far fairer than the indiscriminate pc which just hits people at random!
We can all put up examples to prove a point. How is it fair that I can win 50K on Saturday, lose the lot on Sunday, and not pay a penny of pc, whereas if somone else wins 50K on Sunday, and loses the lot on Monday, they will get clobbered for around 10K in pc
We can all put up examples to prove a point. How is it fair that I can win 50K on Saturday, lose the lot on Sunday, and not pay a penny of pc, whereas if somone else wins 50K on Sunday, and loses the lot on Monday, they will get clobbered for around 10K in pc
Only the dafties are calling for a flat 5% as most of the pc payers recognise that it would be suicide for betfair to adopt such a scheme. Even if it wasn't, it's like convicted murderers requesting a maximum sentence of 3 months so that the odd innocent party doesn't suffer too much.
Strange, you all seem to think the whole PC charge is just to do with comission.
and Taxing winners.
Its not!
- I realised straght away.
The PC carge is entirely about volume of trading.,
Think if it from BF point of view.
Customer 1,
10,000 x £2 bets over a year to make £250 profit.
or
Customer 2,
1 x £20,000 bet to make £250 profit.
** which would they rather have ?
The difference is not the profit.
The difference is cost of running the exchange !
All those small bets add up. Thus giving BF a huge running cost.
and Taxing winners.
Its not!
- I realised straght away.
The PC carge is entirely about volume of trading.,
Think if it from BF point of view.
Customer 1,
10,000 x £2 bets over a year to make £250 profit.
or
Customer 2,
1 x £20,000 bet to make £250 profit.
** which would they rather have ?
The difference is not the profit.
The difference is cost of running the exchange !
All those small bets add up. Thus giving BF a huge running cost.
turtles,
as a gambler you should have a better understanding of 'random' ;)
as a gambler you should have a better understanding of 'random' ;)
Turtles: "We can all put up examples to prove a point. How is it fair that I can win 50K on Saturday, lose the lot on Sunday, and not pay a penny of pc, whereas if somone else wins 50K on Sunday, and loses the lot on Monday, they will get clobbered for around 10K in pc"
Exactly, hit the nail on the head. This is the bit I find frustrating. This particular aspect of the pc is blatantly unfair. Its undefendable.
Exactly, hit the nail on the head. This is the bit I find frustrating. This particular aspect of the pc is blatantly unfair. Its undefendable.
Even an income tax on annual profits would be preferable to this. At least with income tax, when it is calculated over the year, there would be one annual deduction which would leave you with the bulk of your earnings. Because the PC is charged on every winning week, you could have a losing year and still have to pay the PC.
Marksman, yes, if you are a lifetime winner.
I remember asking well before the pc even came in what percentage of their yearly profits people (meaning mostly traders) wd be prepared to pay for ZERO commission.
No one answered me. But I can't suppose that the very many sophisticated winners on the site have no idea of a threshold or breakeven point. It's just that it wd seem astonishingly high to recreational punters, who wd get the idea that the odds were stacking against them when they went up against these players.
I remember asking well before the pc even came in what percentage of their yearly profits people (meaning mostly traders) wd be prepared to pay for ZERO commission.
No one answered me. But I can't suppose that the very many sophisticated winners on the site have no idea of a threshold or breakeven point. It's just that it wd seem astonishingly high to recreational punters, who wd get the idea that the odds were stacking against them when they went up against these players.
Hi all, if we all take them to court over premium charges, hoards of us all chip in and turn up, the power of the people is what betfairs all about, we have to do it altogether and fight them all together, the court would not let this company take that much profit whilst calling it self betfair! because that's a con
once we all sign somthing and send it into betfair with our intentions of taking them all the way, they might get squeaky bums and drop it or at lest 12.5% of it.
once we all sign somthing and send it into betfair with our intentions of taking them all the way, they might get squeaky bums and drop it or at lest 12.5% of it.
MasterTS
I'm afraid that that ship sailed 11 years ago.
Even if we were claiming a refund of historical PC,
I doubt whether it is now worth the effort.
I haven't paid PC for 8 years and, before then, Betfair had taken £1,514.20 in PC.
It would be nice to get it back, but it is too late now.
The only way that it will be scrapped is if it appears to Betfair that they are no longer a viable profit making company with it.
However it is nice to see this old thread resurfacing. I was banned from here for 9 years and this is exactly the sort of lively discussion that I remembered.
I'm afraid that that ship sailed 11 years ago.
Even if we were claiming a refund of historical PC,
I doubt whether it is now worth the effort.
I haven't paid PC for 8 years and, before then, Betfair had taken £1,514.20 in PC.
It would be nice to get it back, but it is too late now.
The only way that it will be scrapped is if it appears to Betfair that they are no longer a viable profit making company with it.
However it is nice to see this old thread resurfacing. I was banned from here for 9 years and this is exactly the sort of lively discussion that I remembered.
Interesting that this has come to light again. But a huge misconception about IP addresses early on in the thread which still applies.
Unless you have a static IP address, and very, very few have, you will be given a different IP address every time you log on to the internet. If it did not work like this, there would never be enough IP addresses to go around because every time someone logged on anywhere that IP address would be used up.
So, IP addresses cannot be used to trace if someone is acting for someone else. BUT, 'cookies' today are very sophisticated and they could be used to match up the same type of user behaviour on different computers.
As for the premium charge, I am sure I read somewhere - perhaps on here - that the PC is sued to partly fund the lay side of the machine because without it there would not be a strong enough 'laying' market.
Anyone know if the latter is actually true?
Unless you have a static IP address, and very, very few have, you will be given a different IP address every time you log on to the internet. If it did not work like this, there would never be enough IP addresses to go around because every time someone logged on anywhere that IP address would be used up.
So, IP addresses cannot be used to trace if someone is acting for someone else. BUT, 'cookies' today are very sophisticated and they could be used to match up the same type of user behaviour on different computers.
As for the premium charge, I am sure I read somewhere - perhaps on here - that the PC is sued to partly fund the lay side of the machine because without it there would not be a strong enough 'laying' market.
Anyone know if the latter is actually true?
a) it is a bumped thread from a decade ago
b) I don't think that is true
One point (that doesn't matter now with 2% commission), is that BF's method of calculating commission for premium charges was clearly unfair (the use of the "[actual commission + 3% of losses]divided by 2" method). I'm not a PC player but still see the portal when I drop under 50% charges and there is a substantial discrepancy between the commission I have paid and the amount BF say I have paid. As I said, with 2% it now favours the customer, but I'm surprised no one made an issue of it in the past.
b) I don't think that is true
One point (that doesn't matter now with 2% commission), is that BF's method of calculating commission for premium charges was clearly unfair (the use of the "[actual commission + 3% of losses]divided by 2" method). I'm not a PC player but still see the portal when I drop under 50% charges and there is a substantial discrepancy between the commission I have paid and the amount BF say I have paid. As I said, with 2% it now favours the customer, but I'm surprised no one made an issue of it in the past.
People talked about it a lot at the time, but there wasn't really anything they could do about it.
If you got a decent contact in the support team for paying PC, it would _almost_ be worth it.
I do wonder how many players they have lost because of PC. Obviously not enough.
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539