|
By:
marky, that's the kind of percentages many gamblers are paying. The all new ... would bring traders and cheats more into line with gamblers and allow betfair to reduce commission for gamblers paying the higher rates.
ics, no. It's based on lifetime profits the same as now. Most gamblers would never pay it. |
|
By:
Jesus, Marky. Under the current system any punter on 4% commission who ends the year dead level, i.e. made not one penny of net profit, would have paid plenty more than £90.95/week commission.
And you're complaining about a proposal under which somebody actually making thousands of pounds of net annual profit would be paying £90.95/week... |
|
By:
Ok, for me, that would mean instead of the 30k I have paid in PC, I would have had to pay 62k, and I'm a gambler, so how is this supposed to be helping me as a gambler exactly?
|
|
By:
Another thread hijacked by feck, to spout off about how it's all so unfair Zzzzzzzzzzzz
Try the politics forum, they talk cr@p all day long in there. Right or wrong, it's hardly changed bf's fortunes, since it was introduced. |
|
By:
ICS, laying 1000.0 shots is hardly typical gambling. The fact the pc does not offer rebates when the losing run comes is a legitimate grip in your case.
|
|
By:
Another thread hijacked by feck, to spout off about how it's all so unfair Zzzzzzzzzzzz
Don't you mean another thread spouting off about how it's unfair put to bed by Feck? Try the politics forum, they talk cr@p all day long in there. No surprise you're familiar with it then. Right or wrong, it's hardly changed bf's fortunes, since it was introduced. Maybe, but not for the reasons you think. |
|
By:
I don't lay 1000 shots, far from it, the majority of my lays are under 10-1.
|
|
By:
What percentage of runners in a race are you laying on average ICS?
|
|
By:
I do sports not horses.
|
|
By:
One point made some while back is that the sports exchange model required huge investment in tech and hardware to keep up with the turnover. Those investors needed to be paid back, hence the need for casino and poker etc as extra revenue. But then the site needed to then grow more to keep up with the expansion and the eye was taken off the sports exchange.
All this functionality needs to be paid for and the root is that its become too big; the sports exchange takeup has hit its ceiling without access to USA or China etc. Along the way the original vision has been lost. |
|
By:
Screaming - the difference is you know your position before you strike your bet and can make a call on whether it is value or not.
|
|
By:
What percentage of outcomes in a market are you laying on average ICS?
|
|
By:
Down to 766p now, bet there's a few shareholders wishing they'd cashed in at the opening price of £15.5 now :)
PC might be one small factor in their decline but they lost their USP ages ago and are just seen as another internet bookies these days butd one with a complicated price structure for the man in the street. They've just got greedy and moved away from the core business with allsorts of crap like virtual racing which probably cost a fortune and was a flop, plus all the poker/casino stuff is done much better by others so doubt that brings in any real revenue. |
|
By:
This thread should not just be about the pros and cons of the PC but take a broader perspective.
The key issue is that BF's profits are seriously not in line with expectations and the next set of results due soon is unlikely to change that. The share price on its IPO was set way too high for its 10 year performance and anyone who uses the site would have known that. Plenty of people pointed that out. BF's record is poor compared to the rise of B365 which is doing much much better, suggesting that the no- margin exchange model has serious limitations especially as its overheads are so high and it has to continue investingin new IT assets. In fact, to my mind this is where BF took the wrong road. It set out its stall to attract traders and leaving aside the unfairness of the commission system which was (and still is) loaded against stright position takers in favour of traders, the growth in super-structure is entirel the result of this poor strategic decision. This has led Bf ibto the gobbleddgook world of IT and compared to its BM competitors it has no nous when it comes to betting, gambling, the mentality of punters etc. No-one who has the slighest understanding of punters would have ever have intoduced a profits-tax which kills the hope the illusion that making a profit is possible. The traders which have been encouraged to flourish are nothing other than an extension of BfF inasmuch as they care not one jot for the sport but purely using clever software to cream off profit which would otherwise go into punters pockets. Their dominating influence iis to have created a super-efficient market which eliminates the edges that most opinion led players can identify. Traders have no option to continue using BF (80% odf something is better than 100% of nothing) but opinion players are not so restricted. Faced with a marginal decision to place a bet with a BM at near comparable odds and placing one on BF is a no-brainer, providing you can get your money on. If I make say a a £1k bet on a 5/1 shot I have to factor in the potential loss of 22%. That means the BM need be no more than 4/1 for the alternative to be viable and most cases now the 5/1 will be available often with a BOG offer - and no commission. Forget about calculations made for a series of outcomes, the punter will make a marginal calculation on the one bet. How many punters have BF lost as a result? How much t/o have they lost from punters who remain on here. My own t/o has not increased one jot and despite difficulties large bets have to be placed elsewhere. it is only the option of hedging on here which appeals. So, BF is a trading site and run by IT people. Just hwo many traders do they think are out there? Most people want to just place a bet on an outcome, so not that many. The clever traders are making a killing and yet they are no the profit providers for BF. It doesn't take a genius to see that BF have boxed themselves into a tight little corner and they are stuck with it. |
|
By:
Feck N. Eejit Joined: 10 Jan 02
Replies: 3829 25 May 11 11:22 Don't you mean another thread spouting off about how it's unfair put to bed by Feck? ----------- believe me feck, that's not something that anyone other than you is ever going to say. although, tbf, you are likely to say it enough times to make up for the fact. |
|
By:
Traders have no option to continue using BF (80% odf something is better than 100% of nothing) but opinion players are not so restricted. Faced with a marginal decision to place a bet with a BM at near comparable odds and placing one on BF is a no-brainer, providing you can get your money on.
--------- but that's a pretty big providing. certainly in football, to match or better the BF price you're going to have to pick the best offer from a firm. and doing that for four figure sums will get you shut down. |
|
By:
So it will with horses but it is similar to putting effort into PC avoidance strategies, isn't it|? Effort has to be put in. Anyway, I have no idea how value is obtained with football bets. BM's have all the stat's and more so where does the edge come from? Backing horses is hard enough but value is possible. Football though? trading I understand. Straight backing/laying, I don't.
|
|
By:
yeah, that's a long-running debate. most people's conclusion is that:
a) the main markets for the main leagues are extremely efficient and b) what value there is is to be found in more obscure games/secondary markets. or IP. I used to think that, but I've become more and more convinced from watching PL match odds markets pre-KO that in fact they're far less efficient than people think. but that's another discussion; surely the point is that if you consistently find the value, everyone bar the exchanges will shut you down. |
|
By:
believe me feck, that's not something that anyone other than you is ever going to say.
I wouldn't expect your average city trader to admit they were nothing more than guessers but it wouldn't necessarily follow that they weren't. As far as pc calimeros go, not one has ever addressed the post below so by their own silence they effectively admit they're sh@gged. 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. They should lower the max rate of commission and recoup it with The all new liquidity generating Premium Charge = (GrossProfit - 5 * CommissionGenerated) / 2. |
|
By:
viva
BF gave up on high rollers, even though they made a pofit, presumably because they were astute enough to recognize that they don't have the skills and experience to overcome the potential for large variance. So, that leaves them with medium and small punters..and traders...to target. Those punters who make a profit but do not pay PC do so because they have margin strategy where they pay more in commission than the level where PC kicks in. Nevertheless, I am sure that each one will look at the next bet and think ..does this take me into PC territory. The PC sits there like a vulture at a feast just waiting to pick the bones. BF have shown no sensitivity to this cissue preferring to stick with their needs for more profit and to argue that it is for the greater good. But above all, my contention is that the trader target group is just not large enough to sustain their profit target growth especially as it demands more and more investment in IT assets. |
|
By:
I don't understand this giving up on high rollers argument. in big football matches I regularly see 5 and 6 figure bets go in, and if you watch in real time you'll frequently see high 6 figure positions dripped into a market.
surely the truth is BF don't need to target high rollers, because if you want to get a really large bet on and you have the money, BF's about the only place you're going to be able to do so no questions asked. |
|
By:
The main issue is they're spending money trying to grow in an area where there's no growth left.
If they were happy with their x million a year that they had 2-3 years ago, there's no reason they couldn't have made that pretty much forever with very little extra expenditure. Instead, they see the lure of casino "free money" and so on and for some reason think people will play here rather than at a household name bookmaker. Not sure why they think that, but it's clear they do. They're in for a huge shock if America ever allows exchange betting legally. |
|
By:
They gave up on keeping the high rollers to themselves though. Or at least they say they did.
|
|
By:
The premium charge debate has been done death. No one knows how much revenue it generates so its impossible to tell whether its been a good idea. The cost of the increased revenue is the loss in goodwill.
|
|
By:
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.....
feck - a guy sells shoes for 100 quid a pair - the govt brings in a 20% tax for all shoe sales - the guy increases the price of his shoes to 120 to cover the tax - who's paying the tax? |
|
By:
viva
in big football matches I regularly see 5 and 6 figure bets go in, 2 points. 1 it's not BF standing them 2. How do you know whether these bets are left standing and not traded out of. Big difference in "in play/at risk" money. |
|
By:
I am probably way off the mark but my impression is that Betfair has spent loads of money on technology, primarily as a defence mechanism to deter competition, and adding "improvements" that no one really cares about one way or another and lost track of the most important thing in driving the business forward..."happy customers"
|
|
By:
it's a good point, lori. if you find a niche and quickly expand to fill it, there's no logical reason to assume you should be able to grow beyond it.
a lot of the perception of crisis is arguably in fact the result of a false assumption that endless growth is possible. |
|
By:
sandown - if you watch markets in real time you can see people dripping in massive positions that they clearly aren't trading out of.
gotta go out now, but will happily debate this further later if you're around and still interested. |
|
By:
What's your point iz???????
|
|
By:
think about it feck...who ends up paying the tax/pc, the 'winner' or 'loser'?
|
|
By:
Of what relevance is this to the discussion iz? You're surely not implying that winners pass on commission increases to the losers?
|
|
By:
a guy trades on b/fair using 100 quid a trade -
b/fair brings in a 20% premium charge for traders - the guy increases the price of his trade to 120 to cover the premium charge - who's paying the pc? |
|
By:
The tooth fairy?
|
|
By:
My wife wants a new house that costs 100K. I was goin to put a tenner on an even money shot but increase it to 100K. Who's paying for the new house?
|
|
By:
a guy sells shoes for 100 quid a pair -
the govt brings in a 20% tax for all shoe sales - the guy increases the price of his shoes to 120 to cover the tax - who's paying the tax? Nobody. If he could sell a pair of shoes for £120, he would have done so before the tax was imposed. If he increases the price of his shoes, people either make do with the shoes they already have or buy them from a vendor with lower profit expectations who can absorb the tax. |
|
By:
feck that didnt answer the question.
and your example dont make sense |
|
By:
Fk me. There's two of them.
|
|
By:
Lex, ffs, if you could just take another 20% off losers why would you wait to be charged 20% more to do so. Put it this way, if betfair introducing the pc brought in an additional x million did that mean losers lost an additional x million?
|
|
By:
Feck N. Eejit Joined: 10 Jan 02
Replies: 3844 25 May 11 18:04 Lex, ffs, if you could just take another 20% off losers why would you wait to be charged 20% more to do so. ------------ very hard to argue with this point imo. |