Forums

General Betting

Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
FINE AS FROG HAIR
10 Nov 10 00:02
Joined:
Date Joined: 12 Mar 07
| Topic/replies: 5,527 | Blogger: FINE AS FROG HAIR's blog
Recreational bettors account for about 98% of all sports bettors. They will lose with absolute certainty in the long run.
Less than 2% of bettors are sharps. That is they understands the maths of finding an edge, and have the discipline to bet only when he has an edge. These players will grind out a profit year to year, but most will earn less than $ 20,000 pa.
The rest, a very tiny fraction, are syndicates. Some with as few as 5 people and $ 500,000 in capital, or as large as hundreds of persons with $ 50,000,000 in capital. syndicates win year after year. Their biggest problem is not how to keep winning - it is how to bet as much as possible on the games it likes.
in summary, sports betting is a form of wealth redistribution.
The recreational players ( and many poorly managed sportsbooks) contribute money to the pool. The sharps pull a little money out of the pool and the syndicates and the well run sportsbooks drain the rest.
All US based research of course.
But I would expect the same to be true the world over, wouldn't you ?
Pause Switch to Standard View Apparently these are the true facts...
Show More
Loading...
Report The Investor November 13, 2010 11:12 PM GMT
Aye robot, I agree with the logic that bots help make the markets more efficient, but it certainly isn't true that betfair has always loved bot players.

Take a look at this article from 2002.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2002/sep/26/horseracing.gregwood

"The result tends to be that there are lots and lots of very small bets going through, which are a pain for everybody concerned," Mark Davies, Betfair's spokesman, said yesterday.

"The bots are not merely a technical problem for Betfair. The site's image, as a place where punter meets punter in a battle of judgment and wits, is among its biggest selling points. A perception that its clients might in fact be taking on a bank of computers, or that it is pointless looking for serious value because a bot will always get there first, would be damaging."
Report The Investor November 13, 2010 11:14 PM GMT
The main reasons why Betfair didn't like bots have been removed though, due to cross-matching and data requests.
Report aye robot November 14, 2010 12:42 AM GMT
Investor,

That's why they installed the API- to give bots an efficient interface without causing problems for the site. Back in 2002 when bots were first appearing they may have thought about banning them, but then they quickly decided to facilitate them instead.

Data request or transaction charges don't affect active Botters because we pay enough Comm to cover them, they will only really hit you if you're either monumentally inefficient or one of those w@nkers who puts 1p bets up. Provided you keep betting like a grown up you never get charged.

It's true that too much talk about bots could harm Betfair's image, but the reality is that this hasn't happened. So there remains a stable symbiosis between BF and it's botters. We keep the markets efficient and they allow us to make profits- which they take a little bit of in PC. It works fine.
Report waytowin November 14, 2010 12:50 AM GMT
Maybe in the past betfair loved bot players,why not they made the markets more efficient.
As growth becomes stagnant the betfair machine will look for greater pieces of the cake and will create further efficiencies.
I would guess their in house trading teams have analysed every bot strategy and will soon be itching at the bit to make full use of their bookmaker's licence and start seeding the markets.
Natural progression and if I was CEO with growth stagnating this would be my target market......enjoy the sun while it still shines!
Report Trevh November 14, 2010 1:25 AM GMT
I hope you're right Waytowin, there's nothing I like more than efficient markets, I can't be the only one.
Report FINE AS FROG HAIR November 14, 2010 2:52 AM GMT
If it becomes a battle between the minds behind the independent bots and salaried BF employees, I know where my money will be.
Report aye robot November 14, 2010 10:34 AM GMT
enjoy the sun while it still shines!

Actually I agree, although there are no real threats on the horizon this is very much my attitude as things can change at any time and put a stop to the fun. In general though- where there's a change there's an opportunity. I'm sure I'm not the only one who's been preparing for the IR cross matcher.....
Report Feck N. Eejit November 14, 2010 12:04 PM GMT
i have no doubt feck is an intelligent person but his stance on this form of profit making seems incredibly strange coming from someone who obviously likes the exchange format.

you cannot have an exchange framework without trading being a factor.


Yes you can unless you're classifying anyone closing out a bet as a trader. I can't be bothered going into the gambler friendly interface again but a simple commission on turnover scheme would put paid to most of the parasitic trading.
Report .Marksman. November 14, 2010 12:46 PM GMT
But anyone closing out a bet is a trader.
Report marky sparky November 14, 2010 1:09 PM GMT
Aye Robot - Do you stick to one sport or do you cover several?  I'm guessing you only do pre-match/race and not in-play? Or is it the other way around?
Report aye robot November 14, 2010 1:14 PM GMT
The other way round, I only do in-play, although I did a little pre-off in the beginning. The overwhelming bulk of my activity is  on the horses but I dabble in other sports too.
Report Feck N. Eejit November 14, 2010 1:36 PM GMT
But anyone closing out a bet is a trader

All bets are effectively closed out at the end of the event.
Report .Marksman. November 14, 2010 2:00 PM GMT
Feck, I'm not quite sure what you are getting at.
Are you saying that you never trade, whatever the circumstances?  But that anyone who does is a parasite?
Report The Investor November 14, 2010 2:32 PM GMT
By:
Feck N. Eejit
When: 14 Nov 10 12:04
i have no doubt feck is an intelligent person but his stance on this form of profit making seems incredibly strange coming from someone who obviously likes the exchange format.

you cannot have an exchange framework without trading being a factor.

Yes you can unless you're classifying anyone closing out a bet as a trader. I can't be bothered going into the gambler friendly interface again but a simple commission on turnover scheme would put paid to most of the parasitic trading.


It would also put an end to people being able to operate at tiny margins. I would still be able to operate under a commission on turnover scheme, but I would no longer be turning over £1M+ per month, and would by necessity be creaming a far larger percentage of profit on turnover. My approach incorporates anything I can use to make money: trading, straight bets, cross market arbitrage, cross bookie arbitrage & trading etc. Under your proposal my activity would shift away from trading, toward straight bets and arbs.

My counter argument would be this: Although my trading activity (taken in isolation without my other activity) will diminish the returns that end up in the pockets of 'gamblers' as a whole, it also serves to minimize the spread. I can create a spread at 2-2.02. This would not be possible under a commission on turnover scheme. Effectively my trading activity takes money out of the winning gambler's pocket, and puts most of it back in the pocket of the loser.

On a commission on turnover based scheme, the winners (including myself) would simply take the loser's money at a faster rate, although less would get matched (even ignoring ping-pong money). That can't be good for Betfair.
Report The Investor November 14, 2010 2:33 PM GMT
By:
Feck N. Eejit
When: 14 Nov 10 13:36
But anyone closing out a bet is a trader

All bets are effectively closed out at the end of the event.


True, the main difference to consider is the commission advantage of closing out prior to the event closing.
Report The Investor November 14, 2010 2:39 PM GMT
Aye Robot,

I mostly agree with your post about the API. Regarding data request charges, there are a few things that don't make sense. During the season, I generate more than enough commission, so I don't even come close to paying DR.

The problem I had was that after the World Cup, Betfair were putting lots of football games in play, but all of them with extremely poor liquidity, Finnish football etc. I have a profit expectancy per market which is perhaps as low as 5% of what it would normally be, due to hardly any of bets getting matched. I make a fairly small profit, and end up paying DR due to not enough bets getting matched to avoid it.

Due to this I have to limit my activity, which means I make even less, to the point where I say, I'm not going to bother (which is exactly what I did).

My point is this: During highly liquid games, I make the most. You could say that the benefit to Betfair of having me around is actually the lowest at these times. In illiquid markets, me pricing them up will generate some activity. Yet this is what they are discouraging.
Report Lori November 14, 2010 2:39 PM GMT
I find myself using the site that charges on turnover more rather than less since they changed the price structure a year or so ago.
Report Feck N. Eejit November 14, 2010 3:02 PM GMT
It would also put an end to people being able to operate at tiny margins.

Why should this bother gamblers though? Again you have to call upon quiet markets to make your point but as there's rarely any money of note in quiet markets I can't see it would bother that many of us on lastfewminutes.com.

Incidentally, I don't think getting rid of traders would make that much difference to gamblers without a major change to the interface.
Report Zola's Back Heel November 14, 2010 3:18 PM GMT
Yes you can unless you're classifying anyone closing out a bet as a trader.

Person A through the exchange format decides to take a position, to back or lay.
Some time later Person B through the exchange format decides to take the opposite position.

You only seem to have issue with that if person A and B are the same person.

Please spell out your flawed closed "gambler friendly" auction exchange so those that have not yet heard it can gauge which option they would prefer.
Report aye robot November 14, 2010 3:34 PM GMT
I do see your problem Investor and I have some of sympathy for you, but ultimately I think your solution is the right one, simply don't play in those games. Betting is driven by supply and demand, if you (and others like you) don't play then the margins available in those games will increase as the people who do want to play have to take worse value. In the end there are only so many people who want to bet on second tier events, if there are just not enough of them then there won't be enough money for you to take, you'll have to leave what there is to the low liquidity specialists.

Ultimately there is only enough room for a relatively small number of winners in any given market because all markets are driven by mugs. For each winner there must be a small army of losers. A bunch of pro players can't simply play each-other because pro players always stop playing if they're not making money.

On a technical note, there are many quite simple ways of optimising your use of the API to keep your refreshes down. For example if you're using Gruss you could link your markets to a spread sheet that continuously varies your refresh rate depending on how the market is shaping up. Frankly if I were you I'd be looking to bot up your whole strategy since from what you've said on here in the past it sounds very bottable. It's really not that difficult and it frees you up to do other things than stare at your computer.
Report Feck N. Eejit November 14, 2010 3:58 PM GMT
Person A through the exchange format decides to take a position, to back or lay.
Some time later Person B through the exchange format decides to take the opposite position.

You only seem to have issue with that if person A and B are the same person.


Any issues I have would be dependent on what "Some time later" means. means
Report Zola's Back Heel November 14, 2010 4:10 PM GMT
So on Feckfair you would be locked into/out of your ability to place new bets for an arbitrary amount of time for each bet you place.

I can see them queuing up around the block for that functionality.
Report Feck N. Eejit November 14, 2010 4:20 PM GMT
No queues on feckfair zola. If going rate is 4.0 then everyone's squared up at 4.0 with those wanting most on being most likely not to get fully matched. HTH.
Report The Investor November 14, 2010 4:23 PM GMT
By:
The Management
When: 14 Nov 10 15:40
Seems strange - on the one hand apparently we need you and the terrific "service" that you so generously provide in the markets, yet on the other hand if there aren't any true punters in these markets you are unable to operate in them.

I think it kind of proves who needs who and concludes the whole parasite discussion.


If there aren't any 'true punters' in these markets no-one who currently makes a profit will be able to operate, not just me Laugh
Report The Investor November 14, 2010 4:24 PM GMT
Everyone who makes money here is reliant on people 'having a bet'.
Report Feck N. Eejit November 14, 2010 4:31 PM GMT
The difference is investor, if the true punters moved en masse to betquack without the traders they'd be able to operate pretty much as normal (particularly in the pre-event markets). If the traders moved en masse to betquack without the punters (as they did after the introduction of the pc) no one would notice any difference either here or there. Yet the traders would have us all believe that the supply all the liquidity snd the place would fall apart without them.

The word "trader" seems to conjure up visions of "geniuses" in striped jackets throwing massive sums of money back and forth at each other. Anyone with a bit of sense knows that all those financial parasites are is a bunch of guessers and fraudsters.
Report Feck N. Eejit November 14, 2010 4:32 PM GMT
*they supply all the liquidity snd the place would fall apart without them.
Report Coachbuster November 14, 2010 4:45 PM GMT
Feck ,if traders are coining it in so much on here ,why not become one ?  one of those stipey jackets might just suit you yet   Blush
Report The Investor November 14, 2010 4:49 PM GMT
I agree that the exchange would function fine without traders and that position takers supply far more liquidity than a trader staking the same amount.
It's simply that Betfair have set up the exchange to provide an in-built edge to traders. If this wasn't the case I wouldn't trade. They could have set up the exchange to charge commission on turnover to begin with, but chose not too.

It's difficult to see why they would change that now.

My guess is that the proportion of traders moving after the PC was introduced was fairly small, despite all the talk about it. Even with PC, betfair stil have quite a big lead over purple.
Report .Marksman. November 14, 2010 4:53 PM GMT
Coachbuster, behave!
As I said yesterday, Feck is an honourable man and he wouldn't lower himself to trading, even though he could make lots of money that way.
Report Feck N. Eejit November 14, 2010 4:53 PM GMT
My guess is that the proportion of traders moving after the PC was introduced was fairly small, despite all the talk about it.

I don't think it was small at all. They came back with their tails between their legs because "there was no liquidity over there" Laugh yet still continue to propogate the myth that they supply all of it.
Report The Investor November 14, 2010 4:59 PM GMT
I don't who propogates this myth, but I do agree that this is nonsense.

Another factor in favour of the current commission structure is that it encourages (real) liquidity providers.

For instance, if I think a score of 2-0 is value in a football match and back it, I have an incentive to back or lay any other scoreline in that market, no matter how small my positive expectancy is, as it will increase my overall edge. That would no longer be true under a commission on turnover structure.
Report Feck N. Eejit November 14, 2010 4:59 PM GMT
Feck ,if traders are coining it in so much on here ,why not become one ?

It's entirely irrelevant to the discussion. I don't want rid of traders because they're winning money I want rid of the trader friendly interface because it deters liquidity, encourages and rewards leeching and creates a glut of "professional gamblers" that will ultimately lead to taxation. If it was winners I wanted rid of I'd be campaigning for the abolition of bots but I'm all for bots that are odds driven as opposed to queue info driven.
Report The Investor November 14, 2010 5:04 PM GMT
I think the most obvious indicator of the level of liquidity you are providing is your commission discount. This is based on real money changing hands rather than ping pong funds. Although there is still cross market arbitrage to consider.
Report Coachbuster November 14, 2010 5:11 PM GMT
I don't think it was small at all. They came back with their tails between their legs because "there was no liquidity over there"

____________

nothing to do with the fact that the site looks like it was designed by a 10 year old  (so no one uses it for that reason ) ?  Laugh
Report Feck N. Eejit November 14, 2010 5:15 PM GMT
Ah, right Coach. So if McDonalds put their prices up 400% the traders would still eat there for the pretty colours.
Report Coachbuster November 14, 2010 5:20 PM GMT
Feck, i  can see the major flaw with **** ,and its in its layout and design as you well know , a badly designed site will never  attract customers ,why would it ? They don't even offer an incentive bonus (not one that i'm aware of )  even bet 365 manage that .
Report Feck N. Eejit November 14, 2010 5:33 PM GMT
The site was fine when I used it 6+ years ago Coach so I can't imagine it's gone backwards since. Then again, I don't require a queue update every 0.01 seconds.
Report SHAPESHIFTER November 15, 2010 10:02 AM GMT
Does anyone have a link to the article when betfair gave a summary of how the users were doing?  At the time, I think they were fighting off the proposed "taxes" on laying, etc. 

A small percentage made 6 figures.  An absolute handful.  From there it was 15K or less.  A minute percentage.  Balance were minimal or red.
Report Rocket to the FACE November 15, 2010 10:13 AM GMT
Does anybody have access to their annual report? They are all in there, apparantly.

I get an error message when I try to view it

...

http://corporate.betfair.com/sitecore/service/notfound.aspx?item=%2fannual-review-2008&user=extranet%5cAnonymous&site=Betfair-Live
Report no moves November 15, 2010 5:25 PM GMT
I can't help but think that the only real contrast on here is that some people  win and many others consistently lose.

Aren't the people who are abusive on here, calling people names like parasites, likely to be losing punters, bitter, that their not clever enough to be successful, in the end isn't their atitude largelly motivated by jealousy.
Report The Investor November 15, 2010 5:48 PM GMT
rocket.
http://corporate.betfair.com/investor-relations/~/media/Files/B/Betfair/Annual%20Reports/betfair-annual-review-2008.pdf
Report Rocket to the FACE November 15, 2010 5:51 PM GMT
Everybody has a motive. Fecks isn't for the greater good of Betfair or its users, it is for himself. Just like everybody else.
Report Feck N. Eejit November 15, 2010 6:24 PM GMT
I'm against the PC because in it's present form it's a bar to new custom and does affect the odd innocent party. Personally I would've introduced a system that rid us of the parasites altogether. It's naive however to think that if the PC hadn't been introduced the rest of us wouldn't have been paying more by now. When they do decide they want even more money then in "the all new liquidity generating premium charge" they have the means to up the charges for those parasitic elements who are already on the best deal without generally affecting the true liquidity providers.
Report The Investor November 15, 2010 6:45 PM GMT
The Management,

What is the reason that you don't trade?
Report The Investor November 15, 2010 6:46 PM GMT
Another question is 'how do you define a trader?'.

If it's someone who trades purely due to the fact that it is optimal from a commission point of view, the skillset would not differ from that of a 'straight bettor'.
Report Feck N. Eejit November 15, 2010 6:58 PM GMT
it is flawed in that it encourages what it was designed to deter.

TM, I can't see how it could possibly encourage it to anything like the degree the old system encouraged it.
Report FINE AS FROG HAIR November 15, 2010 7:06 PM GMT
My problem with sympathising with the PC payers because it is too costly to have a losing week, is what is the difference between that situation and a non PC payer going through an extended losing slump.
Does the non PC payer expect, or get, any relief commission wise from BF to carry him along till he starts winning again ( if ever). ?
Answer that to my satisfaction, and maybe I'll change my mind about the whole thing.
Report McChicken_Sandwich November 15, 2010 7:43 PM GMT
Why should anyone get a rebate for losing?
Report FINE AS FROG HAIR November 15, 2010 8:38 PM GMT
Sorry still don't get it.
A non pc payer, is getting his commission deducted every trade, every week just like everybody else is.
And when he goes into a slump he does not get any relief from that.
A non PC payer total charges average out at greater than 20 % of all his net income, taken week in week out.
Are you saying that PC payers end up paying more than 20 % of their total net income in total charges because of the fluctuating nature of their income flow.
If so, then what would you say is the average percentage of annual net income paid by the PC payer, including everything( that is comm paid, implie comm. Pc charges).
If that is for most an exorbitantly large, unfair figure, then I will concede to you on the matter.
But bear in mind there would in fact be some successful non-PC payers whose total charges to net income could be close even to 100%.
I have trialled a system where that actually happens. It ran as high as 90 %.
Report FINE AS FROG HAIR November 15, 2010 8:42 PM GMT
And do try to be polite in your reply.
I know it seems to run contrary to your nature, but do try.
You even had a go at Coachbuster yesterday, for just making some simple, harmless, humorous asides.( I know that humour is not one of your strong points, but even so.)
And he, to his absolute credit, didn't respond to you at all, as I always stupidly do.
Report FINE AS FROG HAIR November 15, 2010 9:14 PM GMT
Well just answer the one important question, if nothing else.
What is either the published or your best guesstimate of what an average PC payer pays in a year in total charges ( actual and implied coomm. and PC charges) in ratio to his/her annual net income ?
As I said, I'm willing to concede on this matter if it it is extraordinarily high and unfair compared to what non- PC paying punters ( successful ones that is) incur.
Report Bayes. November 15, 2010 9:26 PM GMT
Maximum total charges on 2% for a PC payer is 21%. I think on 5% you can can pay up to 27%.
Report The Investor November 15, 2010 9:34 PM GMT
Yes, 27.9% max on 5%
Report Bayes. November 15, 2010 9:38 PM GMT
How do you get 27.9, Investor? I haven't really looked at it but a quick fiddle with my spreadsheet seemed to tend towards 27%.
Report FINE AS FROG HAIR November 15, 2010 9:52 PM GMT
So my point is that doesn't seem to be grossly unfair or inequitable, compared to what is paid by successful non-PC  paying customers.
If not, then why are the PC payers expecting to be treated more equitably ?
That's where they lose me I'm afraid to say.
It's not an argument, as Mgt puts it, about the rights or wrongs of BF changing its commission structure as the site evolves. They have that right indisputably.
I would like as would everybody,for prices on everything I use or buy to stay low forever, but that's not realistic. Price rices happen. Live with it. Accept it.
So what am I misiing in Mgt's never ending gripe on this particular subject ?
Report aye robot November 15, 2010 10:03 PM GMT
It is the people that are claiming to be winners but that are also pro the Premium Charge that arouse most suspicion

Management, I assume that's aimed at me. I'm not not about to get into a ridiculous "yes-no" slanging match about this or anything else but I will state clearly that I don't make any false claims on this forum or any other. Frankly I have better things to do.

I keep what I believe to be a realistic attitude to the PC because I'm generally happy with my lot on here. I enjoy a huge degree of freedom in my life that I wouldn't have without Betfair and I make far more money than I ever have done before. I simply don't mind paying for the privilege of being able to make a lot of money for relatively little effort.
Betfair isn't a perfect company by any means but it is certainly one of the better companies that I deal with and I'm broadly happy to support them. Betfair is still far and away the best place to gamble.


I find the b1thing and whining about PC that goes on in this forum ridiculous and it does concern me that it may put off new and existing customers so I'm quite prepared to put what I see as a balanced and reasonable view forward to counter it. Ultimately most of the people who complain about PC don't even pay it, they are just "concerned that they might" which is absurd as most of them would need a combined brain and personality transplant first. It's also clear that many of them don't even take the trouble to understand it before they start the moaning. It's the usual Gambler's pattern- whine, complain, blame and then re-deposit.

On a different note, it's a bit of a shame what's happened to this thread as it had some decent enough discussion on it. It has now descended into the usual puerile name calling nonsense. It would be nice if those who make a hobby of insults and ignorance as well of those who just want to wheel out the same old cr@p again and again could occasionally desist and allow those of us who'd like to engage and sensible and informed conversation to do so.
Report FINE AS FROG HAIR November 15, 2010 10:14 PM GMT
Wel said Aye Robot, even though I think you might be inferring to me in some way in your classification of those who make a hobby of insults and ignorance.
I know I do respond in kind at times to insults directed at me, but I like to think that I do not gratuitously engage in or initiate such puerile name calling.
However, methinks perhaps I protesteth too much.
Once again tks for your well said, well needed common sense points.
Report aye robot November 15, 2010 10:17 PM GMT
Actually I wasn't thinking of you FAFH. You do post a lot but you're not usually offensive!
Report Bayes. November 15, 2010 10:18 PM GMT
My main objection to the PC is that it was such a blatant afterthought. They invented an interface which revolutionised gambling. They were lauded in many quarters and accepted gleefully all the praise. They even feted their most successful clients. Then, despite enormous growth and profits they redefined how charges should be considered. Ie. instead of charges being market by market, they are now market by market or, if it suits us, customer by customer.

I don't have a problem with PC per se, I have a problem with the charging structure changing. I have addressed some of my PC liability and I will address the rest of it once I am sure the goalposts won't move again.
Report FINE AS FROG HAIR November 15, 2010 10:19 PM GMT
Now I definitely know that what I'm going to say now is going to be taken the wrong way, but the devil in me just can't help himself. I enjoy setting myself up.
I would just love to sit in your lap for one day while you are at your lap top gambling away in the successful, robotic way you do.
Everybody's dream on here, I would dare to say, though most have buckley's at achieving it.
Report FINE AS FROG HAIR November 15, 2010 10:22 PM GMT
Btw either fully clothed or in my favourite little number, whichever you would prefer.
Report Rocket to the FACE November 15, 2010 10:33 PM GMT
I thought you had a profitable system FAFH?
Report Zola's Back Heel November 15, 2010 10:44 PM GMT
Btw either fully clothed or in my favourite little number, whichever you would prefer.

Now theres an exposure I'm not going to lay.
Report .Marksman. November 15, 2010 10:54 PM GMT
The problem is that there are so many more losers, on these forums, than winners.  Perhaps 98% of those on this thread are losers.  And these losers (in their twisted minds) would welcome the weekly Premium Charge statement, because it would make them feel better about themselves, because they had achieved something. But their history on Betfair has been one of unrelenting losing, and deep down they know that they will never get the PC statement.  So, instead they start approving of the PC.  Saying that it is necessary to keep the commission rates down for the majority.  These losers (in life, as well as at gambling) start despising the PC payer, just so that the charge can become more justifiable, in their minds.
Perhaps some of these losers will start using words such as parasites, city boys, queue jumpers to describe people who are obviously just better at this game than they are.  I suspect that The Management is right to be suspicious of those who claim to be PC payers and still approve of it.
He is also right when he says that PC payers cannot afford to have a losing week.  That could apply to those on 5% commission, but not necessarily, as some position takers are really good at it.  But 23% is completely different.  I doubt whether any position taker could win against that, unless they were betting on a high number of markets in a week.
If someone can't make the mental leap to see how the PC can drastically affect ones betting strategy, they probably don't have the intelligence to win long term at gambling in the first place.
Report FINE AS FROG HAIR November 15, 2010 11:21 PM GMT
Rocket
There's more than one way to sin a cat.
I'm always keen to learn how others do things differently and perhaps better.
Report FINE AS FROG HAIR November 15, 2010 11:22 PM GMT
Marksman
You're one of my favourite psters.
But this time I think you're well off the mark.
Report FINE AS FROG HAIR November 15, 2010 11:23 PM GMT
Rocket
" --- skin a cat.".
Not being an Ausralian rugby league player I'm not into doing other things with animals.
Report The Investor November 16, 2010 12:56 AM GMT
Bayes, it was a typo, should be 26.9% (26.87% to be precise) Min charges for 5% comm are 22.5%.
Report Trevh November 16, 2010 1:13 AM GMT
These PC discussions do become boring and ruin threads, but I think you made some good points there Frog, I've always said the same, why should some users consume more of the resources but contribute less towards the overheads?

I'll never pay the PC, I pay far more than that already, so I guess it would be a welcome reduction to my weekly comm lol. I'm on here for 10-12 hours a day 7 days a week, everything done manually, and expect to pay more than half of my profits in comm.

Other more automated users will use far more resources than me and pay far less. Fair shout to Aye Robot who is happy to pay his fair share.
Report Lori November 16, 2010 1:20 AM GMT
everything done manually

That's completely irrelevant in a PC discussion. It's a complete myth that bot users are more likely to pay it.
Report Trevh November 16, 2010 1:33 AM GMT
Well I guess my point is that they can play in far more markets than me at any one time, and those markets don't appear out of thin air.
Report Lori November 16, 2010 1:38 AM GMT
I think you may be confusing PC and data charges Trev.

I have paid PC and possibly will again, and I don't use anything but the standard interface.

I don't think PC users use more, or fewer, resources than anyone else.
Report Trevh November 16, 2010 1:53 AM GMT
Lori, I would imagine most regular PC payers are using some form of automated bet placement, but even if not I'm quite happy with BF charging a minimum amount to successful users of their services.
Report Lori November 16, 2010 1:59 AM GMT
I know several PC payers and I only know one who uses BetAngel. All the others are the same as myself and use the standard interface. There's no reason of course why I should be much of a representative sample, but that's my experience.

Not going through the other half of the discussion though as it's all been done before and froggy is merely stirring the pot out of boredom as usual.
Report loserschaselosers November 16, 2010 11:02 AM GMT
can I ask a really simple question : what is a trader and why is the outright punter seen as some sort of morally superior bettor ?
Report swift-tuttle November 16, 2010 11:11 AM GMT
A trader is a person who seeks to make profit from price fluctuations in the market prior to the result becoming known.

The outright punter is a person who seeks to make profit from making the right selection in the context of the actual result. He is seen as being morally superior because he 'bets like men' (see Richard Baerlein's quote in respect of Shergar and other similar quotes over the years).

Bettors aren't usually exorted into action with the roar 'It's time to trade like men'.
Report egner November 16, 2010 11:20 AM GMT
"bets like men"....is simply a phrase that panders to the male ego in an attempt to reinforce their masculinity,,,,

nothing "morally superior" about it
Report loserschaselosers November 16, 2010 11:37 AM GMT
trading like a man seems to be the first step to ruin.

if i knew i would be taking an outright position before ko (football), i used to try to manufacture better odds by trading in and out in the days before hand. i don't have time for this these days, but it seems a perfectly satisfactory method of improving your odds if you have time, and actually requires taking decent sized outright positions to be effective.

i bet a lot in the running , regularly changing my position as the odds move or the score changes. again, i will have outright positions for periods of time, before greening (or redding) out . this also seems a perfectly satisfactory activity.  to bring this back to the OP, I would guess that whereas 98% of bettors are losers, 99.9% of "billy big boll*cks" punters are losers.
Report brendanuk1 November 16, 2010 11:44 AM GMT
Bettors take a position and never see that position as wrong ever, no matter what they see or happens in the race/match
Report swift-tuttle November 16, 2010 11:46 AM GMT
the bottom line is the true test

trading must involve giving away value so it's second best imo
Report brendanuk1 November 16, 2010 11:54 AM GMT
No it doesnt. Bet on horse, watch it fall and die and not trade out if 1000 was available to lay.
Sure there are plenty of extreme examples and everything in between
Report loserschaselosers November 16, 2010 11:59 AM GMT
quite right Management. as John Maynard Keynes said "when the facts change, I change my mind. what do you do ?"
Report brendanuk1 November 16, 2010 12:09 PM GMT
parasite
Report brendanuk1 November 16, 2010 12:13 PM GMT
thats what all the parasites say!
Report Feck N. Eejit November 16, 2010 1:02 PM GMT
Trading based on your opinion of what the odds should not be confused with parasitic trading based on queue information.
Report Feck N. Eejit November 16, 2010 1:05 PM GMT
These losers (in life, as well as at gambling) start despising the PC payer, just so that the charge can become more justifiable, in their minds. Perhaps some of these losers will start using words such as parasites, city boys, queue jumpers to describe people who are obviously just better at this game than they are.

That is a very hurtful post NoMark and I have just initiated a program of self harm because of it. CryCry
Report Feck N. Eejit November 16, 2010 1:06 PM GMT
He is also right when he says that PC payers cannot afford to have a losing week.  That could apply to those on 5% commission, but not necessarily, as some position takers are really good at it.  But 23% is completely different.  I doubt whether any position taker could win against that, unless they were betting on a high number of markets in a week.

Oh no, wait a minute. I have cancelled that program as I have just realised you aren't the full shilling (IMO).
Report Feck N. Eejit November 16, 2010 1:07 PM GMT
Trading based on your opinion of what the odds should be should not be confused with parasitic trading based on queue information.
Report Feck N. Eejit November 16, 2010 1:24 PM GMT
No worries TM. Our day will come.
Report RichWill November 16, 2010 1:29 PM GMT
Nobody trades on queue information anymore,  too much spoofing.
Report Feck N. Eejit November 16, 2010 2:01 PM GMT
Spoofers obviously do.
Report Bayes. November 16, 2010 2:42 PM GMT
And Feck, what about traders who know the price but use the queue information too? Are they semi-parasitic, or parasitic, or neither? I know one thing, they'll make the most money.
Report Feck N. Eejit November 16, 2010 2:44 PM GMT
I think we're all compelled to use the queue information Bayes. It's what fks the site up for gamblers.
Report Coachbuster November 16, 2010 4:07 PM GMT
The Management     15 Nov 10 17:50 
To the contrary - It is the people that are claiming to be winners but that are also pro the Premium Charge that arouse most suspicion in me. Those two views don't go together -

________________________

Why should it arouse suspicion ? There may be reasons why a pc payer may not mind the charge existing if it helps them make a tidier profit  , i am convinced  since the charge came into force  there has been more of the pie to eat into  . I could be wrong .
My only concern is it may keep new punters at bay ,prefering the 'know where you stand' prices at betting shops .
Report FINE AS FROG HAIR November 16, 2010 6:58 PM GMT
To The Mgt and all other vociferous critics of the  introduction of the PC.
I am willing to concede you may be right on this matter if you can please just answer the following basic question.
What, either iyo or from published data, is the average amount of total charges ( ac,ic, and pc) to average net income of the average PC payer over ( say) the course of one year.
Is it ( say) 20-30% ,or much, much higher or lower ?
I just want to be able to understand just how truly penalistic, or not, the PC is to these types of punters.
Report FINE AS FROG HAIR November 16, 2010 7:37 PM GMT
And remember Mgt, BF can still at least unconditionally use the slogan " Where net winners are welcome ".
Still a marked advantage over its bookie type competitors methinks.
Also, as a curiosity point, what has GR done with his life since his major boo boo ?
Retired into oblivion, made another fortune, gone into PR consulting ?
Never hear of him in the press I read.
Report FINE AS FROG HAIR November 16, 2010 8:52 PM GMT
Well right now I suppose there's evidence of the the bottom line answer to the big question posed by the PC
That is,  why have there have been no postings on here for the last hr. or so.?
Because, presumably, everybody is too busy " trading " on tonight's football.
Except me of course.
Report duncan idaho November 19, 2010 11:22 AM GMT
You really are a pain in the arris, FAFH Cry
Report Rocket to the FACE November 19, 2010 1:03 PM GMT
You don't have to win much at all to be hit with the charge.

When I went into my £1000 allowance I had a Gross P&L of only £1669
Post Your Reply
<CTRL+Enter> to submit
Please login to post a reply.

Wonder

Instance ID: 13539
www.betfair.com