General Betting
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
In order to mitigate the impost that can not be named, I've taken up churning.
Churning doesn't have quite the same meaning in the financial world, but its close enough.
I'm looking at a AUD500 profit from the current Pak/Windies test match.
So in order to avoid the impost that can not be named, I have to generate 100 in commision (PC calculation and ignoring my discount).
I get 12.5 of that from the win itself, which leaves 87.5.
I've been churning by betting on racing favourites. Lets say average odds of 2 (it makes the math simpler), betting $50 a time generates 1.25 in commision win or lose.
Which means I have to bet on 70 races to generate enough commision.
That's a lot of races.
Is there an easier way?
I could increase my stakes but that runs into distorting the market and statistical variance (a losing run becomes more likely). I've already been placing bets on the illiquid pace and trot races.
I've also been churning on the EPL, but that's now over, so I understand. I don't follow soccer.
I'm also curious as to whether churning, effectively increasing market volumes, was an intended consequence of the impost that can not be named.
Churning doesn't have quite the same meaning in the financial world, but its close enough.
I'm looking at a AUD500 profit from the current Pak/Windies test match.
So in order to avoid the impost that can not be named, I have to generate 100 in commision (PC calculation and ignoring my discount).
I get 12.5 of that from the win itself, which leaves 87.5.
I've been churning by betting on racing favourites. Lets say average odds of 2 (it makes the math simpler), betting $50 a time generates 1.25 in commision win or lose.
Which means I have to bet on 70 races to generate enough commision.
That's a lot of races.
Is there an easier way?
I could increase my stakes but that runs into distorting the market and statistical variance (a losing run becomes more likely). I've already been placing bets on the illiquid pace and trot races.
I've also been churning on the EPL, but that's now over, so I understand. I don't follow soccer.
I'm also curious as to whether churning, effectively increasing market volumes, was an intended consequence of the impost that can not be named.
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 5
|
By:
Don't you just end up worse off doing it that way?
|
|
By:
I'm open to new ideas.
|
|
By:
I just pay it and play on Betfair a bit less than I used to.
There seems no point in messing around with elaborate ways to save literally a few quid when that time is better used finding ways to beat the markets. If you're on over 3% I don't see how your strategy is saving money and if you're under 3% I don't see that it's worth your time. |
|
By:
To me BF is a hobby and the money I make is like points in a computer game.
Otherwise, what I am doing is in fact BF's stated objective for the impost that can not be named - keeping liquidity in the system. If the money doesn't stay in my pocket, I'd rather it be in some other punters pocket. |
|
By:
I'm sure that BF are quite happy to see off-setting strategies because it leads to more volume more liquidity and what they lose in PC they make in extra commission on the churn.
Devilishly cunning, Moriarty. |