General Betting
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
More thinking today about Betfair's Premium Charge. It occurred to me that if my bank was to send me a letter informing me of a new charge that would be based on my average balance over the past 60 weeks, then I would consider that most unethical. I'm sure that had most of us known about this change we would have traded or bet with other exchanges / bookmakers and been prepared. Now I am to be penalised because of a strong past 60 weeks. It has been suggested that this may even be illegal, though I doubt that a company the size of Betfair would make a mistake like that.
A couple of other thoughts. The £1,000 allowance over 60 weeks works out at £16.66 per week. £2.38 a day. To anyone who is a serious investor/gambler on here, that really is worthless. Similarly the 250 markets. I am sometimes active in over 100 markets a week. What good is an allowance of 250 markets?
It seems obvious that Betfair are trying to limit their customers to losers and occasional winners. In other words, they are moving away from the Exchange model towards a more traditional bookmaker. A typical exchange makes their money from commission, and doesn't differentiate between big winners, small winners or losers. Buy stocks or commodities, and you pay commssion at the time of the trade - not up to 10 days later depending on how your investment fared! Perhaps Betfair think they can best grow their business this way. Maybe so, but the genie is out of the bottle, and the new generation of punters rather likes the Exchange model and the idea will not wither and die even if Betfair does.
In the long-term, the gap will be filled by another Exchange who will hopefully learn that you need winners to draw in the losers. In fact, when I first opened my account and lost 80% of my bank over 18 months, I was within a whisker of giving it all up, but it was reading the forum and stories of people like Troy McClure that motivated me to learn and to master trading. (I remember reading an article about Troy in, I believe, a Betfair online publication - funny how they don't want people like him any more!)
In the short-term, it appears that **** is already seeing a big increase in turnover with the Yorkshire v Warwickshire cricket match yesterday seeing a higher total matched on the Purple site than on Betfair. Given that for many people there has not been enough time to transfer funds over, and open accounts, this is very encouraging news. Come 22nd September, and perhaps that tipping point we hear about in business will have been reached, and there will be a new market leader.
And Betfair will dry up quicker than their 'not so sharp-minded' executives could ever have imagined.
A couple of other thoughts. The £1,000 allowance over 60 weeks works out at £16.66 per week. £2.38 a day. To anyone who is a serious investor/gambler on here, that really is worthless. Similarly the 250 markets. I am sometimes active in over 100 markets a week. What good is an allowance of 250 markets?
It seems obvious that Betfair are trying to limit their customers to losers and occasional winners. In other words, they are moving away from the Exchange model towards a more traditional bookmaker. A typical exchange makes their money from commission, and doesn't differentiate between big winners, small winners or losers. Buy stocks or commodities, and you pay commssion at the time of the trade - not up to 10 days later depending on how your investment fared! Perhaps Betfair think they can best grow their business this way. Maybe so, but the genie is out of the bottle, and the new generation of punters rather likes the Exchange model and the idea will not wither and die even if Betfair does.
In the long-term, the gap will be filled by another Exchange who will hopefully learn that you need winners to draw in the losers. In fact, when I first opened my account and lost 80% of my bank over 18 months, I was within a whisker of giving it all up, but it was reading the forum and stories of people like Troy McClure that motivated me to learn and to master trading. (I remember reading an article about Troy in, I believe, a Betfair online publication - funny how they don't want people like him any more!)
In the short-term, it appears that **** is already seeing a big increase in turnover with the Yorkshire v Warwickshire cricket match yesterday seeing a higher total matched on the Purple site than on Betfair. Given that for many people there has not been enough time to transfer funds over, and open accounts, this is very encouraging news. Come 22nd September, and perhaps that tipping point we hear about in business will have been reached, and there will be a new market leader.
And Betfair will dry up quicker than their 'not so sharp-minded' executives could ever have imagined.
Show More
It was Troy who started the thread warning the premium charge was going to be introduced a few hours before it was announced, a lot of people thought it was a wind up for the first 3 pages [smiley:crazy] i'll ttt that if i can find it.
You can see how Betfair has radically altered it's Marketing in the last few years .In 2008 their ads still had the 'sharp minds' thing .Now , with the ''front room' stuff is it is indistinguishable from other bookies in style and content.
You can see how Betfair has radically altered it's Marketing in the last few years .In 2008 their ads still had the 'sharp minds' thing .Now , with the ''front room' stuff is it is indistinguishable from other bookies in style and content.
Yes your right tobermory.Everyone seemed to regard it as a wind up.
betting_quant i have had account with them for aprox 10 year but do admit i try to use them more since the tax came in force
What is it about traders that make them think they're so important that the rest of us should pay for the running of the site while they get to operate virtually commission free. Their attitude is identical to that of the parasitic sc.um in the financial sector who are getting pay rises and huge bonuses while the rest of the country pays for their mistakes.
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 greater than what 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 pc calimero please tell us why the gamblers should have to make this wednesday payment?
Would giving those NOT being charged on the wednesday a rebate of 75% of their previous week's commission be a solution to the above injustice? If you think so then you need treatment.
Under the old system if you had 100 backs at 1.1 and they all won and I had 100 backs at 110.0 and one won, we'd both have the same turnover and gross profit but I'd be expected to pay up to 11 times the commission you would. 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.
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 greater than what 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 pc calimero please tell us why the gamblers should have to make this wednesday payment?
Would giving those NOT being charged on the wednesday a rebate of 75% of their previous week's commission be a solution to the above injustice? If you think so then you need treatment.
Under the old system if you had 100 backs at 1.1 and they all won and I had 100 backs at 110.0 and one won, we'd both have the same turnover and gross profit but I'd be expected to pay up to 11 times the commission you would. 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.
The all new liquidity generating Premium Charge = (GrossProfit - 5 * CommissionGenerated) / 2
Coming to an exchange near you soon.
Coming to an exchange near you soon.
the best news is im pretty sure its going up soon
people have been saying that for at least a year... no doubt you will be right one day in the future
people have been saying that for at least a year... no doubt you will be right one day in the future
under that formula my pc last week would go from $280 to $700
im putting my house up for sale and moving to a shack, or if i cant afford that im moving to the street in front of your home feck, with my 8 kids who i can no longer afford to feed or clothe
im putting my house up for sale and moving to a shack, or if i cant afford that im moving to the street in front of your home feck, with my 8 kids who i can no longer afford to feed or clothe
Feck lives in a gated mansion and his staff will not allow you anywhere near his house.
posts have been removed from this thread, including mine.
Yes betting_quant,must be becourse you mentioned ****,rather petty i think.
interesting that they've started deleting posts. how long's that been going on?
deleting POSTS betfair police should be ashamed,its time the press highlighted this unfair ,unethical ,unreasonable,and prob unlawfull tax.
luloo they count the money matched differently at purple so what looks like a big figure could be pennies compared to totals on here.
+ your £1000 allowance is now on the lifetime of the account, not a rolling 60 week thing
+ your £1000 allowance is now on the lifetime of the account, not a rolling 60 week thing
TheVis thank you i do understand,and your right the purple is still a mile behind.But it is getting better,betfair def losing big traders,as the markets reflect,what with the tax and 8 second delays on football markets its under standable.
^^^^ Not to mention the constant outages that they clearly couldnt give a crap about, judging from the fact they never compensate people for them.
The charge was presented as a fee for using the site. If you no wanted to avoid it and cd make alternative arrangements, you cd withdraw and wd not be liable.
This was how bf got round the retrospective 60-week aspect of the charge, wh/ of course was not announced in their t&c s at the time of bettors originaly signing up or playing for their qualifying period. It surprised me at the time that this construction (fee for present & future servs, not a retrospective charge) was not legally challenged by a big winner under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Act.
Luloo, of course they are moving towards being a conventional bm. They are happy for almost all their liquidity to be at prices where pretty much all their users just exchange money between themselves. Of course they can tolerate the sort of winning insider who creams off ordinary punters on the condition that 1) they get a juicy cut; and 2) they are an essential part of the insider making money.
I wd like to see them making more of an effort to be competitive on price, esp. on horses (their original market), and to grow morning volumes. With the charge they've found a way they can live with winners, but can they sustain winners who provide genuine liquidity and whose opinion is essentially of the same sort as the enthusiasts they want to encourage?
This was how bf got round the retrospective 60-week aspect of the charge, wh/ of course was not announced in their t&c s at the time of bettors originaly signing up or playing for their qualifying period. It surprised me at the time that this construction (fee for present & future servs, not a retrospective charge) was not legally challenged by a big winner under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Act.
Luloo, of course they are moving towards being a conventional bm. They are happy for almost all their liquidity to be at prices where pretty much all their users just exchange money between themselves. Of course they can tolerate the sort of winning insider who creams off ordinary punters on the condition that 1) they get a juicy cut; and 2) they are an essential part of the insider making money.
I wd like to see them making more of an effort to be competitive on price, esp. on horses (their original market), and to grow morning volumes. With the charge they've found a way they can live with winners, but can they sustain winners who provide genuine liquidity and whose opinion is essentially of the same sort as the enthusiasts they want to encourage?
W/ the cricket, the question is whether the winning traders want to win off the losing traders (rather than the punters), and whether they will be able to do so anyway without the 'real money' of opinion players.
I don't think there is enough of this opinion money to sustain more than one site, and that is bf.
Cricket is an interesting one, in that its clientele tend to be better educated than e.g. football punters and to know about and be able to use bf. What kind of dominance can bf establish in the face of exchanges w/ far lower charges and bm s w/ far less favourable overrounds?
I don't think there is enough of this opinion money to sustain more than one site, and that is bf.
Cricket is an interesting one, in that its clientele tend to be better educated than e.g. football punters and to know about and be able to use bf. What kind of dominance can bf establish in the face of exchanges w/ far lower charges and bm s w/ far less favourable overrounds?
the tax has ruined this site, i would not bet here again im a purple people eater now... i dont like betting with a hidden amount of tax not knowing how much you've got to pay and when... shame really as WAS great at one time 
THE TAX WILL AFFECT EVERY ONE SOON, AND SOON BETFAIR WILL BE JUST ANOTHER BOOKIE
Back in the day, I used this site almost exclusively. In these times of taxes and high comms, it simply isnt worth it anymore. There is almost always better prices to be had elsewhere.
I too have gone purple as well as other options and use this place as a last resort. How times change.
I too have gone purple as well as other options and use this place as a last resort. How times change.
luloo markets would become illiquid before that happens.
unreal 20odd effing percent and have to stand for this crap
An outage such as that could be terrible for gamblers as it could turn out they've missed the big payout they've been chasing for weeks. At least traders are only missing out on the price of a few toblerones. Gamblers should withdraw their funds until betfair agree to put them on privileged commission (i.e. they should refuse to use the site unless they're put on the premium charge).
The pc payers get f-all if they have a bet on the so called.commision free markets there still going to pay the betfair tax,what a great concession.
luloo, I think the refunded commission still will count as commission paid when PC is calculated.
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539