Aaaah, the smaller markets. You mean traders supply the liquidity in markets where there's no liquidity TurtlesBrain?

Aha, defeated by the smile merchant again. Darn.

It could only improve on those small markets with no liquidity which is all provided by traders. There's fk all to hide.

Don't you think the best indicator of how much liquidity you provide is your commission discount rate?

What does it do anyway?

Early positive signals on regulation from the US have been offset by an expensive defeat in the Australian courts over taxation, while initial soundings from several European countries suggest that they may follow Italy and ban betting exchanges completely.

The difficulty in securing consistent overseas regulatory successes has led market watchers to predict Betfair will be forced to change its strategy outside the UK and become a traditional bookmaker, thereby taking on risk from punters rather than simply receiving a commission as the middleman. One betting industry expert said: "Betfair has £170m of cash sitting on its balance sheet, access to debt and its own shares. It is a question of when, not if, it makes an acquisition."

When asked if the company was considering furthering its overseas ambitions by bidding for a bookmaker, chief financial officer Stephen Morana replied: "I don't think we will rule anything out."

I suppose that the PC is the most discussed topic on the forum, and rightly so for it represents all that is bad about big business practice both in the way that it was implemented (incompetent,after the event of establishment, customers ignored) but mostly because of the  principle of charging for services provided through taking a share of profit achieved.

By operating this way, BF are effectively stating that they are operating a franchise for users. They provide the platform and the users (losers) and the winners reap the benefit of them doing so.They also ensure that minimum charges are in place through commissions and usage charges so that they still make money out of non-winners.

However, there is no formalised franchise agreement which might cover tenure of security as far as PC rate is concerned, no limitation placed on the number of new players/winners who might erode profits of the current franchisees.

This methodology continues to favour trading strategies at the expense of traditional bettors who have far fewer bets, but end up paying more as a share of profit, so its no woinder that the number of traders must grow at a faster rate than traditional players. I am with Feck on this one. Whilst traditional players don't need traders to be part of the collective user base I doubt very much that the reverse would be true. The players most likely to switch to alternatives would be traditional players providing that the closure of winning accounts can be overcome. That for me is the reason why BF is not growing organically in its older markets e.g horse racing, because the bigger players must use alternatives if at all possible rather than be penalised on here.

That's ok feck.  I just use it so I know I'm not wasting my time messaging someone.

"Explained it"?
The old system is the same as the new system as I read that is it not, if the people concerned aren't paying PC? And:
If you've a person who trades not a jot, but earns enough to pay PC, he'll end up paying ~20% of his profit to betfair. If you've someone who trades 100%, but earns enough to pay PC, he'll end up paying ~20% of his profit to betfair.

If you're use of betfair is such that you're paying > 20% to betfair DESPITE PC, well that's quite impressive.
?

just checking


Sorry. Can you have another go at making your point because I don't understand what it is you are asking/saying?

I say Fecks link but I obviously mean quote!

If they want to increase liquidity then they should decrease standard commission for the higher band payers and claw it back with

the all new liquidity generating Premium Charge = (GrossProfit - 5 * CommissionGenerated) / 2.

That would at least force the parasites to contribute a bit of liquidity.

Traders provide all the liquidity here, and anyone with a braincell knows it (ie, just about everyone except feck)

turtleshead

Its obvious that the presence of traders in abundance,backing and laying for small gains resulting from small price movements, has the effect of increasing price sensitivity and narrower spreads.But what surely what constitutes real liquidity is the amount of risk capital that is put into the site from players who are betting to an opinion. For example, Player A invests £10k on an outcome.

Say that he doesn't hedge or layoff at all. That £10k provides the means by which hundreds of traders can spread the risk around. Each trader may play £100x 100 times to generate £10,000 t/o but he will risking a tiny amount each time and so the amount of risk money involved might be tiny. To say that its traders who provide all the liquidity on here is a perverse reading of the reality.Traders spread the money provided by others and take a % for doing so. in that way they provide liquidity for smalle rplayers but never lose sight of who starts the process. As I daid, i don't think backers need traders but traders certainly need opinion players.

Feck

I'm resigned to the only conclusion possible which is that BF was set up by traders, for traders and is run by people who only identify with trading and not with backing an opinion. To the extent that the early claims suggested otherwise, action since has shown that those claims have been confined to the dustbin of history. We are where we are and I, like you and others like us, who have an opinion and are prepared to back it, must make most of our dough through traditional channels. BF is still an excellent product but it could have been so much better.It's a shame, but there it is.  This forum is 90% against you because that surely represents the MO of the user base.For what its worth, I agree with virtually every opinion you have  - on gambling anyway - but you are pis**ng in the wind, I fear.

Player A 5-6k? He doesn't pay commission on losing bets and only pays it on winning bets, where does this come from?
Is that your 'experience'?
Player B 1k? I'm not sure there's many traders out there would make 15k and only pay 1k on it, that sounds extremely efficient. And of course if keeps on at it he'll get clobbered by PC.

But let's ASSUME the above figures are correct, let's move onto the other part, where is the supposed 'injustice'? You've just said PC shouldn't affect the non trading player, so PC isn't not injust on them.

BF is a level playing field, it has fair rules, and as long as nobody is e.g. exploiting a bug, people are surely free to adopt whatever strategy they can dream up, no different to laying the draw or looking in their tea leaves while singing Dolly Parton if that helps. If a person can get their bet matched securely and efficiently, that's where his interest should end. It's not as if the odds are on an island and this is the only game in town, the odds on BF will change as external odds on the internet change, that's for sure, feel free to go where you like to place your 'traditional' bet.

The strategies employed by others and what others are doing is none of a persons damned business as long as they're not abusing a bug or such. One man placing a bet and another man laying a bet isn't doing anything wrong merely because of what bet they intend to do say a while later, that's just bl00dy mental. Think about it. At this point it just becomes envy and sticking your nose into other people's business and getting annoyed. Given Fecks hard left 'issues' this should be no surprise given their bizarre feeling of righteousness, of a god given right to tell others what to do and instinctive hatred of anyone they feel are doing better than them, but to grown ups who realise we're all individuals with respect for each other it shouldnt be an issue.

That's the insanity of these threads, the bizarre 'moral highground' some people seem to think they're taking, though you (Sanddown) come across as quite reasonable so don't take that personally. BF has a system, it's there for you to use, it's a level playing field for everyone from the unqualified to the PhD. The commission is NOT exhorbitant and if you think it is, the world is full of bookies catering to simple traditional bets. If others are somehow making things work better for them here than you, well .. welcome to life.

Well said, JC. I'm fed up with imbeciles and morons who continually make out traders (whatever they are or however they are defined!) somehow get to make vast sums of money at just about zero risk with no effort or skill and pay sod all as a result, so somehow betfair have to charge pc to compensate!

SO WHY DONT YOU DO IT YOURSELVES IF IT'S SO SIMPLE

Sanddown: "I haven't used the word "injustice" I don't think"
It was the essence of the second half of the quote you gave and is a general 'theme' which I thought you said were pretty much in agreement with. "The premium charge doesn't even go far enough to address that injustice as those paying it are still paying a lower percentage of their profits in commission than all other long term betfair winners."

I know it's not your words but you know what I mean!

Come on, all you "trader" bashers, why don't you tell everyone why you can't do the same, and see huge risk free sums just flow into your account with no effort or bother and paying betfair next to nothing for the priviledge, it doesn't make sense?!?

steve, can you please explain why there is no value anymore on Betfair for traditional punters ?
  I'd also like to know why you don't bet here anymore as per definition if you are paying PC, you have to do very well on here.

Just to clearify, I'm against the PC and think it's a disgrace and the biggest mistake Betfair has ever done.  It's just that I find your statements very strange.

  And Betfair isn't shutting you down as traditinal bookmakers do, Betfair just want a bigger slice of your winnings if you are successful enough to fall into the PC payer category.