I cannot believe that Mr Black would want to be associated with anything that would drag Betfair into disrepute and am sure that he would only employ managers who had integrity.

He'd have more chance of finding a black power activist in the KKK than finding a city boy with integrity.

"The initial investors reap huge rewards, then a huge number of new customers jump on the bandwagon generating huge fees, while performance deteriorates."


Sounds like most Hedge funds...




The simple fact is the BF markets are way to small for a hedge fund.
Just assume the found  100 punters to invest.
(Thats  100 x  £100,000  =   £10,000,000   thats 10 mil  in capital).

1st Year,  20% profit = £2,000,000      assuming no lossses!
30% mgmt fee ,    30%  *  2,000,000 =  £600k 
Punter get   £1,400,000



What bf markets are big enougth?

"I SUPPOSE I was keeping the books, I’m now beating the books,” muses Keith Sobey, an accountant who now uses his finely-honed analytical skills to study horseracing and help investors beat the odds.


Poor at cooking the books by all accounts.

ANGRY investors say they have lost nearly £1.6m after the collapse of a North East sports betting firm.

Centaur Corporate Holdings, which is based in Seahouses, Northumberland, and its subsidiaries Centaur Global, Centaur Academy and Centaur Swift, called in the administrators a fortnight ago. But the full extent of their huge losses is only now emerging.

Centaur Global worked like a hedge fund with investors putting in money for analysts to try to make a return on. Instead of trading in shares, the company was betting on the results of sporting events.

As recently as December 7, letters from the company seen by The Journal were telling clients that “taking a long term view pays off”.

And investors still believed they had tens of thousands of pounds in their accounts after the company sent out statements last month detailing their finances.

But one of the company’s clients, who did not wish to be named, said: “All client funds were kept separate in a single account and then they would get permission to make bets with it.

“But just over a week ago they sent out a letter saying they were going into liquidation and there was no money left.

“As recently as a statement sent on December 13, detailing November trades, they said my account balance was over £20,000, but that was money which it would now seem didn’t exist.”

The company claimed its analysts included former staff from bookmakers such as William Hill, as well as former Republic of Ireland football star and newspaper columnist Tony Cascarino.

The Journal was unable to reach Mr Cascarino for comment.

Between January 2004 and November 2011, the firm’s website, which is still running despite the closure of both the company’s Northumberland and London offices, claimed it had grown some investments by 1,400%.

But 2011 saw one of its horse racing funds, named after the French philosopher and author Voltaire, lose more than four-fifths of the money invested in it.

And even the firm’s flagship Newton fund, which according to a letter to clients on December 7 had enjoyed “10 winning years” and an average annual profit “of over 200%”, lost a third more than the cash gamblers had put in.

The letter to investors claimed the losses were down to “sheer bad luck”.




Tony Cascarino

You'd have thought so Muqbil however

GAMBLING authorities are believed to be probing a North East sports betting firm that collapsed owing investors £1.6m.

Seahouses-based Centaur Corporate Holdings and it’s subsidiaries called in liquidators a fortnight ago, leaving some people tens of thousands of pounds out of pocket.

Now angry creditors have called on fraud authorities to get to the bottom of where their money went and if it was legal.

A spokesman for the Financial Services Authority (FSA) said they had received inquiries about the collapse of Centaur but, after finding the firm was not covered by their regulations, were directing people to the Gambling Commission.

A lesson in probability.........85% of the posts on this subject will have been from people who lose. This isn't meant to be insulting to the other contributors on thread! This is simply a statistical deduction based upon the avaible data known about the other members on the exchange.

Its arguable that to make a profit you should plough your own furrow. Look at the consensus of opinion on here and do the complete opposite.

Twenty years ago there seemed to be an agreement in gambling circles not to back odds on shots. Was it actually true that odds on betting always lead you to the poorhouse?

In running on sports like golf many times it seems people over-react on things which happen E.g. birdies, bogies.

I remember a piece in the racing post on football matches played at the end of the season, the odds would differ greatly about top teams playing lesser teams compared to the odds which would have been given if theses teams played in the middle or beginning of the season. The suggestion was top teams don't always try as much if they have nothing left to gain, the odds were much closer than you'd expect. but this article poured scorn on whether the mathematical evidence proved this to be true.   After all if you'd paid £50 to get into Old Trafford, even if theyed already won the league, wouldn't you be a bit miffed if the didn't do all they could to win that game.

I myself am not too sure that horse racing is always the best forum for the above theory, too many unknowns E.g. Is the money down? And is the jockey properly trying?

Its my belief that it may work better on ante post horse racing and other types of sports.

The legislation re LIMITED companies used to be...and probably still is....that if a Company "trades"/carries on in business past a point when it is "clear" the Company is insolvent.....
==============================================================

Trading while insolvent is unlawful in a number of legal systems, and may result in the directors becoming personally liable for a company's assets.

Under UK insolvency law trading once a company is legally insolvent can trigger several provisions of the Insolvency Act 1986, including,

    Wrongful trading - Section 214
    Transaction at an undervalue - Section 238
    Preferences - Section 239
    Extortionate credit transactions - Section 244

Under wrongful trading legislation in the UK, if the company continues to trade while it is insolvent the directors of the company may become personally liable to contribute to the company's assets and help meet the deficit to unsecured creditors if the company's financial position is made worse by the directors continuing to trade instead of putting the company immediately into liquidation
====================================================================

Not saying the Company mentioned on this thread was doing this....but looks like the legislation that unsecured creditors would have to consider.

May well be unlikely that any substantial funds would be obtained by pursuing such action............and would probably be costly to pursue.....

As usual FSA ignores situations where an "investor" "invests" in such a company.........they are flaming useless !

This is pure mathematical scam.  Most likely:

- The generous 'salaries' would be based on being employed for the the "academy's".  The salaries/expenses would not be based on the betting fund.  This is key

- The "academy" over several years will show a loss AFTER SALARIES and EXPENSES of the employees and directors.

- The "betting" would show a profit of "X" but the funds to cover the losing "academy" will be multiplies of that.

- Traders and betting will be revealed as never enough to cover the "academy".

- Perhaps the "academy" received LOANS from the fund but when the "academy" "closed", these loans will not be retrievable.


Further investigation will possibly reveal that:

When the "fund" backed an outcome, someone within the organization would simply laid the outcome. 

Since the person laying the outcome would have an "over the top salary" anyways, it didn't affect him.

Outcome:  Fund makes money - expenses paid to individual that laid or salary bonus

Outcome: Fund loses.  So be it and someone is happy and his expenses/salary still remain payable.