Collectively we have the power to have the premium charge repealed within days.....

The only way you'd have the power would be if you got the support of the true liquidity providers (the gamblers). Since they ALL pay a greater percentage of their profits in commission than PC payers how will you go about this?

Is there a bee in the course trading room Doubled?

It depends what you mean by gamblers. Insiders are "gamblers". Course ir players are "gamblers". Who cares about them. In the case of those who are hit with it due to nothing more than the sequence of their results that is unjust and in such cases I think rebates should be given.

Feck still spouting crap about the people who pay the pc being non liquidity providers? Some things never change. Oh, apart from taking the time to spout crap about the entire world conspiring against Celtic to deny them the championship

We just need good communication, an effective leader, and a coordinated plan of action

Easier said than done. People like to leave rebelling to someone else. Don't forget we live in a nation that has been conditioned to being ripped off.

Collectively, as you say in the thread title, we have the power to halt and reverse the extortionate rate of tax on fuel for example, which as we all know is taxed at over 200%, and then even the tax is taxed an extra 20% in the name of value added tax. Rip off's rarely come bigger than that!

But what do we do about it as a nation? Leave it to someone else.

And so the racket continues, on and on and on.

So the question now Sunderlandfan is what are [[i]you[/] going to do about the PC?

If you don't like the price don't buy the product.Basic economics.

If you dont know the price dont buy the product.

You whingers make me smile.

People in the real world are paying 20% 40% 50% + NIC on their income.

You pay no tax but moan about paying a service charge to an organisation that finds all your customers / advertises the product/ guarantees immediate payment/  and provides all the back office support.

You switch on your computer and its all literally in your lap. You'll get no sympathy from the masses.

You suck regular money out of the system that needs replacing on a regular basis.

You are not good for the site. Betfair is telling you - "Either clear off or pay more"  - your choice!

dashero's suggestion is the key.  The calculation is simple enough.  "As of the end of today, the estimated charges this month are..."

BT can do it with your phone bill.  Betfair should be able to

For people who pay the charge regularly the calculation is simple. If you put £100 on a 2.0 shot then if it wins you'll win approximately £80 and if it loses your pc's will drop by around £20. i.e. if it loses you'll be £80 worse off, if it wins you'll be £80 better off. ie. you get 2.0 for a 2.0 chance.

Fecks calculation is very very rough unless you mean by "regularly" "win every time", which is of course virtually impossible.

And no to win 100 in THAT case you'd have to bet £125 to win as £100 you'd lose %20 of the winnings.

The loser[S] is just losing what they'd have lost. They've lost it, it's none of their business who it went to.

Fecks calculation is very very rough unless you mean by "regularly" "win every time", which is of course virtually impossible.

JC, If I meant "win every time" there would've been little point in me mentioning what happens if the bet loses. What I mean is, if you pay the pc and expect to regularly pay the pc in the future. For the purpose of the above example I could have said "if in the future you expect to pay pc's of £20 or more".

JC, I think he just want to get Feck to say/admit that it really is the losers that pay the PC too , as in the past if not Feck himself, at least a couple of his diciples has claimed that winners don't pay commission. All commission is paid by the losers.

Eddie it's a funny thing. In a classic gambling business every penny, whether it be winnings or the cleaners wage, would come from losers. On betfair, it's a bit wierder as the money that goes to betfair isn't so much about winning and losing, it's more about a transaction, on an exchange of money. In a way, if you want to look at that way, though it's the winner that pays commission and PC, the loser also pays it. It's just bundled into their loss(es) so they don't see it.

The way betfair talk about "implied commission" and do a bit of maths which at first sounds wierd, when you think about it, makes a fair bit of sense. If you just forget about old fashioned winners/losers and think more about transactions, it makes a lot more sense.

You COULD argue that losers pay the PC, but that's a convoluted argument, like saying that it's your employer that's paying for your pint when you go to the pub, but by extension the customers of your employer really pay for your pint, and so on etc. Where do you stop?

Spot on .

they never had it for so many years an were profitable ..


why the need recently to bring it ? just to get a better float price  ?

It was all about the timing of the IPO... and the fact that CEO David Yu had his eye on a £7 million Wentworth pad

Everyone keeps getting these premium charge calculations wrong! In reality, premium charge customers are at an advantage when betting:

When doing these 'betting on an evens shot' calculations, you need to consider a winning bet and a losing bet together, since on average if you keep betting on a 50% chance, you'll win as often as you lose. So, at what odds do you need to back an evens shot in order to profit?

Let's take an ordinary gambler on 5% commission, betting on the new Betfair 'virtual coin flip' exchange games markets (I really wouldn't be surprised if they introduced this... anything to make BF more money!)

The gambler backs £100 at odds of 2.06, and being an evens shot, they can expect to win as often as they lose. So we'll look at the results after one win and one loss:

Gross profit from the win: £106. Commission at 5%: £5.30, profit: £100.70.
Losing bet: £100 loss. Gross win from both bets: £6. Total profit: £0.70

This punter has paid a massive 88% of their winnings in commission!

But wait, the premium charge comes to the rescue... Let's say this gambler already has £1000 gross win for the week, with £100 paid in normal commission:

£1000 gross win, £100 commission, that's 10% and so BF add on a £100 PC charge => £800 net profit.

Now, add in the two coin flip bets: £1006 gross win, £105.30 normal commission. Thats 10.47%. Betfair will still want their 20%, which is £201.20. Net profit now is £1006 - £201.20 => £804.80

Do you see? If this person DID NOT pay PC, they would have made £0.70 from their bets. But because they pay PC, their additional profit is actually £4.80

Paying PC has meant that the gambler has made *more* profit from these bets. In other words, they have a bigger profit margin, and could be making money from these coin flip bets by backing as low as 2.02.

Err, the key point is that they make more than one bet! To make any sense of these 'even money shot' calculations, you need to consider winning + losing bets.

Yes, I simplified things by hiding all the implied commission stuff, but the key outcome is the same. Premium charge payers are at an advantage over others.

The whole idea of a rebellion to stop the 'unfair' PC is laughable. Premium charge customers are paying the least commission. Everyone else is paying more than them. If anyone should be refunded, it should be those on >20% commission. Perhaps some of the PC could be given to them?

Premium charge payers are at an advantage over others.

If they are, it's because they are exstremely good at what they do and certainly not like the PC is a good thing for them as you try to make it look like.

I proved this in my earlier post with lots of fun maths. PC payers can profit from backing a coin toss at 2.02. Non-PC payers have to back it at 2.06. PC payers are at an advantage.

What an incredible stupid thing to say.  Do you really think it would be better to refund people actually making money from this site rather than those who actually are long term losers ?

You're making no sense. Are you really claiming that these PC payers are long-term losers?