General Betting
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
22 Apr 11
11:37
Joined:
Date Joined:
10 Jan 02
Betfair send their own rep(s) to the event. The bet placement delay is set at (say) 2 secs (regardless of sport) for any event they have rep(s) present. The betfair rep(s) are allowed to place ir bets or offers which are not subjected to a bet placement delay. At the end of each week betfair calculate the following (each sport treated separately)
x = 100 * (all rep's profits - all rep's wages & expenses) / (Total of winnings on all rep's profitable bets)
Everyone matched with a winning betfair rep bet on that sport is then refunded x% of their loss on that bet.
Pros
1) There would be little point in going to the expense and time of travelling to an event as you'd only get to mop up the crumbs the reps missed. This would mean almost everyone would be using the same feed. In horse racing they could also have rep(s) using sis/turftv with zero placement delay to catch anything the course rep(s) missed, effectively forcing everyone on to the atr/ruk/terrestrial pictures.
2) This might mean atr/ruk would no longer have any reason to delay pictures and they might speed up to attract subscribers.
3) Betfair customers no longer fodder for talentless parasites and racetech and gravy train journalist filth. Racecourses no longer able to leech off said parasites with their trading rooms.
Cons
1) Trusting the rep(s) not to hold back and bet on their own accounts.
2) In running betting would effectively be reduced to betting at fairly neutral points.
Betfair could just allow anyone to have a zero bet placement delay rep account (confined to bets on event(s) in question and placed only through a certain internet address which would make sure they were at the event) in return for y% of the winnings. Don't know what value of y is feasible but the number of "reps" would dwindle if it wasn't feasible in which case it might become feasible.
x = 100 * (all rep's profits - all rep's wages & expenses) / (Total of winnings on all rep's profitable bets)
Everyone matched with a winning betfair rep bet on that sport is then refunded x% of their loss on that bet.
Pros
1) There would be little point in going to the expense and time of travelling to an event as you'd only get to mop up the crumbs the reps missed. This would mean almost everyone would be using the same feed. In horse racing they could also have rep(s) using sis/turftv with zero placement delay to catch anything the course rep(s) missed, effectively forcing everyone on to the atr/ruk/terrestrial pictures.
2) This might mean atr/ruk would no longer have any reason to delay pictures and they might speed up to attract subscribers.
3) Betfair customers no longer fodder for talentless parasites and racetech and gravy train journalist filth. Racecourses no longer able to leech off said parasites with their trading rooms.
Cons
1) Trusting the rep(s) not to hold back and bet on their own accounts.
2) In running betting would effectively be reduced to betting at fairly neutral points.
Betfair could just allow anyone to have a zero bet placement delay rep account (confined to bets on event(s) in question and placed only through a certain internet address which would make sure they were at the event) in return for y% of the winnings. Don't know what value of y is feasible but the number of "reps" would dwindle if it wasn't feasible in which case it might become feasible.
Show More
Funny how all the fast pic people loved it when it was them at an advantage in trading shops but have started bleating in the last 18 months or so.
Betfair could just allow anyone to have a zero bet placement delay rep account (confined to bets on event(s) in question and placed only through a certain internet address which would make sure they were at the event) in return for y% of the winnings. Don't know what value of y is feasible but the number of "reps" would dwindle if it wasn't feasible in which case it might become feasible.
The more I think about this the more I think this is the way forward but with the following changes (wrt racing), "reps" are subject to a 1 sec bet placement delay (to protect them from each other) & all others to a 2 or 3 second delay. Effectively what this amounts to is, betfair hire the course trading rooms and anyone who wants to bet there gets to do so as a "rep" but they have to give a large percentage of their winnings back to those who had losing bets with them. For the stay at home punter this would mean that when they placed a bet it would probably either be matched by someone at a similar time disadvantage or they'd have placed a bet with a course player who'd very likely have to refund a proportion of their bet should the stay at home punter lose.
The more I think about this the more I think this is the way forward but with the following changes (wrt racing), "reps" are subject to a 1 sec bet placement delay (to protect them from each other) & all others to a 2 or 3 second delay. Effectively what this amounts to is, betfair hire the course trading rooms and anyone who wants to bet there gets to do so as a "rep" but they have to give a large percentage of their winnings back to those who had losing bets with them. For the stay at home punter this would mean that when they placed a bet it would probably either be matched by someone at a similar time disadvantage or they'd have placed a bet with a course player who'd very likely have to refund a proportion of their bet should the stay at home punter lose.
When I was arguing that bets on fallen horses shd be voided, I realised that bf wd have to intervene in the markets in a timely fashion to avoid serious market manipulation.
Another danger might be that the bf representative cd have race-reading skills superior to those of the trading room money-buyers--resulting in bigger losses for IR players and faster attrition of participations. The more skilled the representative, the fewer the 'neutral points'--would there be any at all?
For this reason I prefer the idea of offering a far higher comm rate to independent on-track players. There are ways of making the scheme comm-neutral (or poss. better) for bf. It wd stave off claims that some successful bettors were carrying out a business and cd be taxed and wdn't necessarily mean any decline in revenue for the tracks.
Another danger might be that the bf representative cd have race-reading skills superior to those of the trading room money-buyers--resulting in bigger losses for IR players and faster attrition of participations. The more skilled the representative, the fewer the 'neutral points'--would there be any at all?
For this reason I prefer the idea of offering a far higher comm rate to independent on-track players. There are ways of making the scheme comm-neutral (or poss. better) for bf. It wd stave off claims that some successful bettors were carrying out a business and cd be taxed and wdn't necessarily mean any decline in revenue for the tracks.
Don't worry, racing is in decline anyway. It's better for Betfair to focus on getting a bigger slice of the football betting pie.
the beautiful game: where the future is!
the beautiful game: where the future is!
How would you know who these independent on-track players were askari. Anyway, my latest post suggested some of those independent on-track players would become the "reps" but would be refunding a large part of their winnings to those they fleeced.
I don't see why there would be a great decrease in neutral moments. Certainly the "reps" would have a bigger time advantage (maybe .75 of a furlong rather than .5) but we all know that when you're betting at non-neutral moments from home you're either going to be too late for the successful bets and get the unsuccessful ones matched.
I don't see why there would be a great decrease in neutral moments. Certainly the "reps" would have a bigger time advantage (maybe .75 of a furlong rather than .5) but we all know that when you're betting at non-neutral moments from home you're either going to be too late for the successful bets and get the unsuccessful ones matched.
It's better for Betfair to focus on getting a bigger slice of the football betting pie.
It applies to football as well investor, though not every game.
It applies to football as well investor, though not every game.
On second thought, probably no need for it in football games.
Feck, I was broadly supporting yr latest post. Rather than bf having their own reps on track (wh/ wd give them the principal-agent prob. you describe) they cd grant licenses whose terms set a much higher comm. rate in return for a quicker bet placement period (than for non-licensees). If anyone wanted to take up a license w/out being on-track (poss. stupidly), the impact on ordinary IR players wd not be negative.
There might be fewer neutral moments if bf made it imposs. to 'money-buy' on fallers, horses pulling up, horses suffering interference etc. The more IR became a matter of skill for any winner (trackside or not), the more a bettor at home wd be disadvantaged by not seeing a big jump, a jockey giving reminders etc. Of course, as you say, he is at the moment.
The investor, football is so boring compared to horses! There are too good teams in the world and they play each other four times in two weeks. And people complain that the flat season lacks a narrative and is badly structured!
There might be fewer neutral moments if bf made it imposs. to 'money-buy' on fallers, horses pulling up, horses suffering interference etc. The more IR became a matter of skill for any winner (trackside or not), the more a bettor at home wd be disadvantaged by not seeing a big jump, a jockey giving reminders etc. Of course, as you say, he is at the moment.
The investor, football is so boring compared to horses! There are too good teams in the world and they play each other four times in two weeks. And people complain that the flat season lacks a narrative and is badly structured!
Sorry askari, I misunderstood. I still think returning a large percentage of their winnings (to those who had losing bets with them) would be the preferred option. Re conducting a business, they could be thought of as betfair employees on a bonus scheme.
May as well start at the start:
Feck N. Eejit
22 Apr 11 11:37
Joined: 10 Jan 02 | Topic/replies: 3,346 | Blogger: Feck N. Eejit's blog
Betfair send their own rep(s) to the event.
Are you serious?
Feck N. Eejit
22 Apr 11 11:37
Joined: 10 Jan 02 | Topic/replies: 3,346 | Blogger: Feck N. Eejit's blog
Betfair send their own rep(s) to the event.
Are you serious?
When I put this up I was expecting a lot of abuse from the course players although I suppose they did have a day off yesterday. I'm astonished I've barely had a word of support from the stay at home punters though given that if they got matched with someone betting through betfair's course trading room they'd get a fair portion of their stake back if they lost but all of their winnings if they won.
A guaranteed hoovering, for a percentage of the hoovered bets back? The delay is already insufficient on a lot of tennis, snooker and darts matches. People that try to tell you otherwise are protecting their own interests.
Rather than increasing their advantage (regardless of the fact they have to give some back), why not impose some limits to their activities rather than changing the dynamics of the person-to-person exchange?
Rather than increasing their advantage (regardless of the fact they have to give some back), why not impose some limits to their activities rather than changing the dynamics of the person-to-person exchange?
Betfair know who the fast pic boys are. Charge them appropriately and dole it out amongst those matched by their bets. Rather than imposing a premium tax which catches out the ordinary users with no time advantage.
p.s. I can see the attraction with your idea but creating superusers will make it worse. Much better to have betfair to hoover everything themselves and dish it all back out afterwards, agree?!
Agree with your 11:36 post baldloaf but doubt bf would have the will. I also agree the idea is probably unappealing wrt sports where the bet placement delay is greater than the feed delay.
The lack of comments from course players suggests they fear this is a viable way forward.
If it doesn't lose bf commission and it allows them to hang onto customers disgusted by getting repeatedly hoovered, why wd they be against it? Other things being equal, bf have an interest in any winning client losing, esp. consistent, low-risk winners.
As far as I understand, they need to do a lot of rejigging at the moment w/ diff. bet placement delays wrt the feed for live sports. Their feed for frames betting in snooker seems to be too slow to prevent courtsiders getting the price. Rather than having to work out complicated equations (about comm., the value of protecting customers etc.) they cd issue make the market or collect license income in return for market access.
As far as I understand, they need to do a lot of rejigging at the moment w/ diff. bet placement delays wrt the feed for live sports. Their feed for frames betting in snooker seems to be too slow to prevent courtsiders getting the price. Rather than having to work out complicated equations (about comm., the value of protecting customers etc.) they cd issue make the market or collect license income in return for market access.
The lack of comments on this idea illustrates that the bulk of ir horse racing is made up of 2 types of people, fast pic merchants and half-wits.
It wd not surprise me if a lot of the would-be IR sharks are actually losing (rarely but enough to make them overall losers) to winning fast-pic players.
Otherwise who are these people winning off? Can there be anyone who looks up, decides on a bet, re-checks the colours and submits?
Otherwise who are these people winning off? Can there be anyone who looks up, decides on a bet, re-checks the colours and submits?
Never underestimate the stupidity of the human race askari.
i think the reason that you're not getting any flack from the track players is that they probably don't feel they have anything to defend. they all know that actions speak louder than words and betfair have clearly shown by their actions(or non actions) over the years that they have no intention of tampering with the in running product. admirable as your intentions are feck, there's no way betfair would ever adopt a plan like yours - too complicated, nobody knows where they stand till end of week settlement etc etc. the track players know that they have migrated to the top of the in running food chain and i'd say that most of them fully realise that what they are doing most likely has a shelf life to it and are just going to hammer it till their advantage comes to its natural conclusion.
Apart from betfair having to organise their own course trading room I don't see anything complicated about it at all bank man.
Anybody, whether Betfair related or not, having different terms to place bets (i.e. different delays) would cause immense issues, practical, legal and perception wise.
Although saying that, I think the other parts of what you are saying are probably not that far from the end game for Betfair, which as I see it, would have a Betfair subsidiary doing the on track in-play trading.
The other viable option for Betfair to garner a larger slice of the money that is going to in-running punters is to purely increase the premium charge %age.
For some reason I think the first option would be slightly more palatable to the general populous of Betfair punters, however I wouldn't rule them out of doing both.
Although saying that, I think the other parts of what you are saying are probably not that far from the end game for Betfair, which as I see it, would have a Betfair subsidiary doing the on track in-play trading.
The other viable option for Betfair to garner a larger slice of the money that is going to in-running punters is to purely increase the premium charge %age.
For some reason I think the first option would be slightly more palatable to the general populous of Betfair punters, however I wouldn't rule them out of doing both.
quick pictures through the internet is where betfair needs to try and encourage the broadcasters to be operating through a subsciption service . this could bring the delay down to only around 1 second , which would make playing at the track not as profitable as it is now .
all people would have to do is to install a graphics card with dual monitor capabilities to your computer for around £80 . then you could watch the racing on your tv streamed through the internet , whilst still betting on your computer .
all people would have to do is to install a graphics card with dual monitor capabilities to your computer for around £80 . then you could watch the racing on your tv streamed through the internet , whilst still betting on your computer .
shocking in this day and age there are delays, I don't play IR only the keep bet option when after laying shorter IR than SP on front runners etc. every bet should be voided on fallers once they have hit the deck or unseated as in the rule book they are now out and can't remount, why should people be able to hoover these risk free?? betfair should have reps at the course with info on times of fallers and any bets after this should all be voided!! could open a can of worms if suspending betting on fallen horses so best void them after the event - can only nthink betfair like these bankers for paying PC
Increasing the PC would also affect those who arent at it.
If they really wanted to do something about it then the accounts could easily be identified.
I dont think anybody cares. There are so many fingers in the pie.
If they really wanted to do something about it then the accounts could easily be identified.
I dont think anybody cares. There are so many fingers in the pie.
Countdown obviously hasn't started yet since Mucho is posting haha
The delays will always be there while people in racetech/atr/ruk & journalists are picking up free money because of it. If my idea were adopted they no longer would be.
Im doing as well as ever. Ive given up on some tracks and things will get a bit harder next month when analouge gets switched off but never mind.
On the plus side I seem to have finally figured out Kempton!
Tell Biscar I am asking for him.
Also - The Premium Charge means that Betfair are also in effect making money from the delays.
They would now have to be certain that any increase in turnover/commission from a more level playing field, would compensate them for the reduction in PC income.
Another finger in the pie.
On the plus side I seem to have finally figured out Kempton!
Tell Biscar I am asking for him.
Also - The Premium Charge means that Betfair are also in effect making money from the delays.
They would now have to be certain that any increase in turnover/commission from a more level playing field, would compensate them for the reduction in PC income.
Another finger in the pie.
^ Hit nail on head imo - all parties that could act have a vested interest in not doing so.
going back to fecks original post, i think there would be fundamental problems in deciding how many reps would be required at each track. obviously the more you have the fairer the system would be - this is borne out by the current situation at each individual track. a fair example being say leicester where there is (please correct me if i'm wrong) about 60 guys with hard wired internet compared to somewhere like ascot where there is none(bar the press guys). anyone who plays in running at home or a trading room will appreciate these huge differences. then you have loads of intermediate stages of this such as sandown which i think has only 1 or 2 boxes or fakenham with similar amounts of players. ludlow has none, newcastle has loads. it goes on and on. betfair would really have to weigh up how cost effective this use of manpower would be and i'd seriously doubt they'd come out in favour of it as imo you'd need at least 8 to 10 reps playing at each track and even then they'd never get all angles covered in races with lots of runners. in summer when there are 6 or so meetings every day this would be a hell of a lot of manpower/cost. obviously increasing the bet placement delay would reduce the number of reps required but i'd still think it would amount to too much cost.
bank man, my 22 Apr 11 15:23 post did away with betfair reps. The "reps" were made up of anyone who wanted to do it. Effectively the current better course players would become the "reps" while the lesser ones would give it up because it was no longer worthwhile (i.e. the numbers would sort themselves out).
The idea is that some course players would use betfair's course trading rooms but (as much of the money they won would be repaid) they'd overall be taking a lot smaller piece of the pie. Meanwhile their presence would deter people from betting from the course using the normal bet placement delay meaning the stay at home punters would be either betting against each other when they weren't being picked off by "reps". When their bet was matched with a "rep" they'd get a percentage of their money back if they lost.
If you really wanted to reduce returns for on-course players to their marginal level, you cd auction off the right to submit bets at various increments of placement delay.
Bf cd then distribute the sums raised this way to losing IR players in proportion to their previous losses.
Bf cd then distribute the sums raised this way to losing IR players in proportion to their previous losses.
Here's a revision of the original idea to hopefully avoid any more misunderstandings.
Betfair have their own course trading room where users (call them zeros) can bet without a bet placement delay in return for returning a large portion (y%) of their weekly betfair trading room profits to betfair. The bet placement delay for everyone else is set at (say) 2 secs. At the end of each week betfair calculate the following
x = (100 - y) * all profits made by zeros / Total of winnings on all profitable bets made by zeros
Everyone who had a losing bet matched with a zero is then refunded x% of their loss on that bet.
The idea is that the existence of zero delay course players deters most people from travelling to the course. The zeros mop up most of the obvious which leaves stay at home punters to bet against each other on the non-obvious. If a stay at home punter is matched with a zero he gets full winnings if he wins but a rebate if he loses (i.e. he effectively gets more realistic odds).
Betfair have their own course trading room where users (call them zeros) can bet without a bet placement delay in return for returning a large portion (y%) of their weekly betfair trading room profits to betfair. The bet placement delay for everyone else is set at (say) 2 secs. At the end of each week betfair calculate the following
x = (100 - y) * all profits made by zeros / Total of winnings on all profitable bets made by zeros
Everyone who had a losing bet matched with a zero is then refunded x% of their loss on that bet.
The idea is that the existence of zero delay course players deters most people from travelling to the course. The zeros mop up most of the obvious which leaves stay at home punters to bet against each other on the non-obvious. If a stay at home punter is matched with a zero he gets full winnings if he wins but a rebate if he loses (i.e. he effectively gets more realistic odds).
Sorry, should read
Here's a revision of the original idea to hopefully avoid any more misunderstandings.
Betfair have their own course trading room where users (call them zeros) can bet without a bet placement delay in return for returning a large portion (y%) of their weekly betfair trading room profits to betfair. The bet placement delay for everyone else is set at (say) 2 secs. At the end of each week betfair calculate the following
x = y * all profits made by zeros / Total of winnings on all profitable bets made by zeros
Everyone who had a losing bet matched with a zero is then refunded x% of their loss on that bet.
The idea is that the existence of zero delay course players deters most people from travelling to the course. The zeros mop up most of the obvious which leaves stay at home punters to bet against each other on the non-obvious. If a stay at home punter is matched with a zero he gets full winnings if he wins but a rebate if he loses (i.e. he effectively gets more realistic odds).
Here's a revision of the original idea to hopefully avoid any more misunderstandings.
Betfair have their own course trading room where users (call them zeros) can bet without a bet placement delay in return for returning a large portion (y%) of their weekly betfair trading room profits to betfair. The bet placement delay for everyone else is set at (say) 2 secs. At the end of each week betfair calculate the following
x = y * all profits made by zeros / Total of winnings on all profitable bets made by zeros
Everyone who had a losing bet matched with a zero is then refunded x% of their loss on that bet.
The idea is that the existence of zero delay course players deters most people from travelling to the course. The zeros mop up most of the obvious which leaves stay at home punters to bet against each other on the non-obvious. If a stay at home punter is matched with a zero he gets full winnings if he wins but a rebate if he loses (i.e. he effectively gets more realistic odds).
I think it is a good idea, and it would really benefit me. Only track players would moan about it.
But there are simply too many people earning from the delay, Betfair included.
I dont think disgruntled Betfair shareholders would care that in running betting is fairer when they ask why profits are down, and their dividends cut.
The premium charge should have been used to eliminate the delays and promote in running betting.
Now it seems everybody is trying to earn as much as they can in the short term.
But there are simply too many people earning from the delay, Betfair included.
I dont think disgruntled Betfair shareholders would care that in running betting is fairer when they ask why profits are down, and their dividends cut.
The premium charge should have been used to eliminate the delays and promote in running betting.
Now it seems everybody is trying to earn as much as they can in the short term.
I think it is a good idea, and it would really benefit me.
Therin lies the problem. Everyone talks from their own standpoint rather than taking a step back and deciding what is fair.
Therin lies the problem. Everyone talks from their own standpoint rather than taking a step back and deciding what is fair.
^ that being the case why is it a problem? The large majority would be better off under it the reason being it's fairer.
john92, surely all bf shareholders don't think short term.
Banks I bet ir at home with ATR and RUK. So it would benefit me whilst being fairer at the same time. Wake up.
Feck, I would like to think not but I wouldnt bet on that. In running betting and short-term thinking seem to go together.
Any plan that requires Betfair investment to make ir fairer would need to pay in the long term. Convincing people that it would pay would take some doing, and then the marketing costs on top.
MInd you, giving what has happened to the share price, maybe all bf shareholders will now have to start thinking long term!
Feck, I would like to think not but I wouldnt bet on that. In running betting and short-term thinking seem to go together.
Any plan that requires Betfair investment to make ir fairer would need to pay in the long term. Convincing people that it would pay would take some doing, and then the marketing costs on top.
MInd you, giving what has happened to the share price, maybe all bf shareholders will now have to start thinking long term!
Banks I bet ir at home with ATR and RUK. So it would benefit me whilst being fairer at the same time. Wake up.
Crazy argument. If you choose to penalise yourself by not having the fastest pics why should those who do get them be forced to lose out? You have a choice and have chosen not to trade using the fastest pics possible. Absolutely nothing to do with fairness and everything to do with people wanting things to favour themselves.
It is natural for people to feel like that but it is hardly a strong argument.
Crazy argument. If you choose to penalise yourself by not having the fastest pics why should those who do get them be forced to lose out? You have a choice and have chosen not to trade using the fastest pics possible. Absolutely nothing to do with fairness and everything to do with people wanting things to favour themselves.
It is natural for people to feel like that but it is hardly a strong argument.
the only thing that will make betting in running a level playing field for everyone, is pictures being broadcast to everyone with no delay .
Not everyone that wants an ir bet can go to the track, so the "choice" agrument doesnt make sense to me.
In a fairer system, the track players could just put more work in. Why would they have to lose out?
A system that rewards skill, hard work and ability more, while protecting people more from being ripped off... if that isnt fairness (or fairer) then I dont know what is.
But it seems since I would benefit from that it means my opinion doesnt matter, so maybe somebody else will take it up with you.
In a fairer system, the track players could just put more work in. Why would they have to lose out?
A system that rewards skill, hard work and ability more, while protecting people more from being ripped off... if that isnt fairness (or fairer) then I dont know what is.
But it seems since I would benefit from that it means my opinion doesnt matter, so maybe somebody else will take it up with you.
Not everyone that wants an ir bet can go to the track, so the "choice" agrument doesnt make sense to me.
By that reckoning then pretty much every bet ever struck is unfair.
If one punter can't be bothered to get a copy of the form because he doesn't have access to the internet or a couple of quid for a RP does that mean that his bets are unfair as he has less info than the bookmaker?
By that reckoning then pretty much every bet ever struck is unfair.
If one punter can't be bothered to get a copy of the form because he doesn't have access to the internet or a couple of quid for a RP does that mean that his bets are unfair as he has less info than the bookmaker?
Crazy argument. If you choose to penalise yourself by not having the fastest pics why should those who do get them be forced to lose out? You have a choice and have chosen not to trade using the fastest pics possible. Absolutely nothing to do with fairness and everything to do with people wanting things to favour themselves.
If you believe that should you not be arguing against any sort of bet placement delay on any sport as that penalises those with the fastest pics most?
If you believe that should you not be arguing against any sort of bet placement delay on any sport as that penalises those with the fastest pics most?
Crazy argument. If you choose to penalise yourself by not having the fastest pics why should those who do get them be forced to lose out? You have a choice and have chosen not to trade using the fastest pics possible. Absolutely nothing to do with fairness and everything to do with people wanting things to favour themselves.
How is it possible to explain this to a newbie to exchange punting before they have lost their pot?
"Oh and by the way, if you want to bet inrunning, you will need to catch the overnight sleeper train to Perth."
How is it possible to explain this to a newbie to exchange punting before they have lost their pot?
"Oh and by the way, if you want to bet inrunning, you will need to catch the overnight sleeper train to Perth."
What am i missing - so the theory suggests detering oncourse players but what about those who shell out nine grand a year for the advantage of sis home pics,surely they are still going to have an advantage over the atr slow pic player.
Seems to me a sis player is suggesting removing the competition -staggering in its absurdness imo.
Seems to me a sis player is suggesting removing the competition -staggering in its absurdness imo.
Betfair could also have a solitary sis/turf tv trading room with a zero bet placement delay with a lower value of winnings deducted. I mentioned this earlier. Anyway, course players not in the betfair course trading room will still have an advantage over the stay at home punters. The existence of the zeros would hopefully deter people from attending the course or the trading rooms.
Seems to me a sis player is suggesting removing the competition -staggering in its absurdness imo.
I don't have sis and I don't play ir (I would like to though).
I don't have sis and I don't play ir (I would like to though).
What would really solve the problem is better technology.
It's unfortunate that we are moving to digital tv, when analogue is almost instant, and digital is a number of seconds behind. Technological progress is in this case anything but progress for gamblers. It's a problem for us that most people don't care/ aren't affected by a delay of a few seconds, so there is little justification in spending money to improve this aspect of technology.
It's unfortunate that we are moving to digital tv, when analogue is almost instant, and digital is a number of seconds behind. Technological progress is in this case anything but progress for gamblers. It's a problem for us that most people don't care/ aren't affected by a delay of a few seconds, so there is little justification in spending money to improve this aspect of technology.
Would your idea remove the advantage of sis home pics players over home atr players.
if no ,whats the point?
if no ,whats the point?
The point is that the course zeros would be mopping up the obvious, the sis/turf tv zeros would be mopping up the crumbs and that would mean few people would be willing to go to the expense of going to the course or the trading rooms. The stay at home punters would then, in the main, be betting against each other or against zeros that would have to refund a portion of their losing stake.
Look at it this way. Would the course / sis players be taking less out of the pot? Is that good or bad for slow pic punters?
I'd say walofs - but ive better manners than some.
Good day to you.
Good day to you.
there would also be a problem with those that allegedly still have the SiS raw feed. there's also still the odd rare feed still available. there's RTE feeds as well, and feeds for the big meetings of the year. then there's the hopeful emerging technology for internet feeds. the theory is good but the practice would be difficult to monitor.
I don't think it would need to be monitored. The raw feed guys would be no different to course players outwith the betfair trading room.
how would betfair identify who the raw feed guys are? they certainly wouldn't be holding their hands up to it.
the tv companies with the rights to broadcast the races need encouragement to provide quicker pictures.
how about the tv companies take 10% commission of your commission rate on all in running bets , so if you pay 5% now, you would pay 5.5% , 3% would pay 3.3% etc , only if the delay is below 1 second over the internet . they could also charge a subscription fee £50-£100 per month for both channels.
how about the tv companies take 10% commission of your commission rate on all in running bets , so if you pay 5% now, you would pay 5.5% , 3% would pay 3.3% etc , only if the delay is below 1 second over the internet . they could also charge a subscription fee £50-£100 per month for both channels.
Don't forget the ISP. They also need a % of your commission paid as an incentive to give you fastest possible response time !
This is beginning to sound complicated to me, but give Feck a day or two and he'll have come up with something.
This is beginning to sound complicated to me, but give Feck a day or two and he'll have come up with something.
but give Feck a day or two and he'll have come up with something.
No doubt something that is primarily designed to suit him but is presented in such a manner that we are supposed to believe it is for the good of all!
No doubt something that is primarily designed to suit him but is presented in such a manner that we are supposed to believe it is for the good of all!
how would betfair identify who the raw feed guys are? they certainly wouldn't be holding their hands up to it.
Why would they need to bank man? Their bets would be subject to a 2 second bet placement delay and so they'd only be getting the not so obvious crumbs left by the zeros. They raw feeders would be no different to course players playing outside of betfair's trading room.
Why would they need to bank man? Their bets would be subject to a 2 second bet placement delay and so they'd only be getting the not so obvious crumbs left by the zeros. They raw feeders would be no different to course players playing outside of betfair's trading room.
No doubt something that is primarily designed to suit him but is presented in such a manner that we are supposed to believe it is for the good of all!
You're becoming pathetic Banks.
You're becoming pathetic Banks.
the tv companies with the rights to broadcast the races need encouragement to provide quicker pictures.
rcing, perhaps the derailing of the gravy train and the decimation of home sis subscriptions would be enough for them to decide now was the time to attract new & costlier subscriptions with fast feeds.
rcing, perhaps the derailing of the gravy train and the decimation of home sis subscriptions would be enough for them to decide now was the time to attract new & costlier subscriptions with fast feeds.
No doubt something that is primarily designed to suit him but is presented in such a manner that we are supposed to believe it is for the good of all!
You're becoming pathetic Banks.
Feck I realise that we don't agree on a number of issues however You must surely agree that all you do is talk form your own standpoint. You even stated earlier that you would like to trade in running therefore your whole campaign appears to revolve around everything changing to suit you.
I'm sure we would all like everything to be geared around our own personal circumstances however most of us realise that such an aspiration is unreasonable.
BTW I neither bet in running on racing nor have any desire to do so therefore I can offer a far more balanced view albeit I realise that anything that doesn't fit in with your masterplan is discredited by you. You may find it helpful to reflect on this as it is probably why you get nowhere with your rants.
You're becoming pathetic Banks.
Feck I realise that we don't agree on a number of issues however You must surely agree that all you do is talk form your own standpoint. You even stated earlier that you would like to trade in running therefore your whole campaign appears to revolve around everything changing to suit you.
I'm sure we would all like everything to be geared around our own personal circumstances however most of us realise that such an aspiration is unreasonable.
BTW I neither bet in running on racing nor have any desire to do so therefore I can offer a far more balanced view albeit I realise that anything that doesn't fit in with your masterplan is discredited by you. You may find it helpful to reflect on this as it is probably why you get nowhere with your rants.
Banks, it would be pointless me making suggestions that I didn't think would be in betfair's interests. It would also be pointless me making suggestions that I didn't think would be in my interests. HTH.
Banks, it would be pointless me making suggestions that I didn't think would be in betfair's interests. It would also be pointless me making suggestions that I didn't think would be in my interests. HTH.
Maybe it is my cynical outlook however I would guess that the latter interests far outweigh the former.
It would also be pointless me making suggestions that I didn't think would be in my interests
An incredibly selfish statement if ever I heard one. I assume that Philanthropy is not high on your agenda!
Maybe it is my cynical outlook however I would guess that the latter interests far outweigh the former.
It would also be pointless me making suggestions that I didn't think would be in my interests
An incredibly selfish statement if ever I heard one. I assume that Philanthropy is not high on your agenda!
Maybe it is my cynical outlook however I would guess that the latter interests far outweigh the former.
Obviously. Do you honestly think betfair should be at the forefront of my thinking.
An incredibly selfish statement if ever I heard one. I assume that Philanthropy is not high on your agenda!
Not where gambling is concerned.
Obviously. Do you honestly think betfair should be at the forefront of my thinking.
An incredibly selfish statement if ever I heard one. I assume that Philanthropy is not high on your agenda!
Not where gambling is concerned.
Don't forget the ISP. They also need a % of your commission paid as an incentive to give you fastest possible response time !
people who use automated betting are already using dedicated servers , this is so their bot will be the fastest to react to market moves . but they are not paying the isp a commission .
people who use automated betting are already using dedicated servers , this is so their bot will be the fastest to react to market moves . but they are not paying the isp a commission .
There are a lot of things that professional licensed bookmakers and winning bf players both want. Foremost is a renewed broad public interest in horses w/ a lot of uninformed, recreational money flying about.
(And if this is going to happen, it will only be sustainable if people believe they aren't always betting against those w/ a technical edge, like faster pics.)
(And if this is going to happen, it will only be sustainable if people believe they aren't always betting against those w/ a technical edge, like faster pics.)
I'm not sure that's true. Look at tennis, liquidity is fine.
Ladbrokes make 7% on turnover on inplay tennis.
The very nature of "uninformed, recreational money" is that it doesn't think or know or care that this is even going on.
I don't disagree totally though, a level playing field would massively improve liquidity, but to say the current situation is unsustainable is going a step too far.
The vast majority of punters bet with the odds against them, and whether that is due to the bookie's overrround, or another punter's technical advantage doesn't make a difference in practical terms.
Ladbrokes make 7% on turnover on inplay tennis.
The very nature of "uninformed, recreational money" is that it doesn't think or know or care that this is even going on.
I don't disagree totally though, a level playing field would massively improve liquidity, but to say the current situation is unsustainable is going a step too far.
The vast majority of punters bet with the odds against them, and whether that is due to the bookie's overrround, or another punter's technical advantage doesn't make a difference in practical terms.
Here's a final revision of the original idea.
When you place a bet in-running you can select to do so with no bet placement delay or with a two second bet placement delay. At the end of each week betfair deduct y% of all the ir profits made betting with no delay and calculate the following
x = (100 - y - z) * Total profit on all bets placed with no bet placement delay / Total of winnings on all profitable bets placed with no bet placement delay.
The value of z is calculated so that it compensates betfair for the loss of their slice of the fraud that takes place under the current system.
Everyone who had a losing bet matched with someone betting with no bet placement delay is then refunded x% of their loss on that bet.
The idea is that the existence of zero delay course players deters most people from travelling to the course. Those betting with zero delay mop up most of the obvious which leaves stay at home punters to bet against each other on the non-obvious. If a stay at home punter is matched with someone betting with no delay he gets full winnings if he wins but a rebate if he loses (i.e. he effectively gets more realistic odds).
When you place a bet in-running you can select to do so with no bet placement delay or with a two second bet placement delay. At the end of each week betfair deduct y% of all the ir profits made betting with no delay and calculate the following
x = (100 - y - z) * Total profit on all bets placed with no bet placement delay / Total of winnings on all profitable bets placed with no bet placement delay.
The value of z is calculated so that it compensates betfair for the loss of their slice of the fraud that takes place under the current system.
Everyone who had a losing bet matched with someone betting with no bet placement delay is then refunded x% of their loss on that bet.
The idea is that the existence of zero delay course players deters most people from travelling to the course. Those betting with zero delay mop up most of the obvious which leaves stay at home punters to bet against each other on the non-obvious. If a stay at home punter is matched with someone betting with no delay he gets full winnings if he wins but a rebate if he loses (i.e. he effectively gets more realistic odds).
The thread title is no longer valid. It should be changed to "A method to fk up course players and give the mugs back some of the money they've been defrauded of".
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539