Collectively we have the power to have the premium charge repealed within days.....

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.

hi jc,

my point is that the pc is being paid with the 'losers' money not the 'winners'.

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".

Well me and feck could argue, we're both correct, just any losses will reduce PC a bit, and everyone loses, that's all I'm saying.

But iz, I don't understand your point.

"my point is that the pc is being paid with the 'losers' money not the 'winners'."

The PC is taken from winners bank, but obviously at the end of the day the winners winnings come from some losers somewhere, but that's a fairly wierd way of looking at things. The winner pays it. If no PC was paid, it'd be in the winners pocket. It's winners who pay PC. The loser has no idea if any PC has been paid or all, part or none of a given bet.

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.

winners don't pay commission?

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?

JTG, you are talking utter crap. Exactly the same could be argued by a poker site. Do you see any of them charging customers up to 20% out of every pound they earn? Nah...because they wouldn't have any customers...Betfair can because they are a monopoly. Simple as that. You are completely deluded if you think there is any more to it than that!

Spot on .

turtle is 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  ?

well its the opposite

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

jc, the argument goes something like this -

a customer who 'pays' pc wants to win 100 net at odds of 2.

to do this they will have to add an extra 20 to their bet to cover pc, other wise they would only end up with 80 profit. if they were not paying pc they would only have to bet 100.

so what you get is the 'loser/s' paying not only the 100 bet but also the extra 20 that had to be added on so the 'winner' could make his 100.

this extra 20 is a transaction strictly between the loser and betfair, not the winner. it is held in the winners account until wednesday but the winner doesn't actually own it.

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.

Your calculation is flawed because you fail to take into consideration both implied commission and the fact that commission paid and implied commission is divided by 2 for the purpose of PC calculation.

  But forget that and please show us what happens if these two different customers o nly have one bet @ 2.06 on the coinflip and they both win ?

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. 

   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?

   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 ?

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?

Mr Magoo, it is perfectly possible to pay PC in the short term but have no edge and be a long term loser, if you can't see that you certainly live up to your name!

Incredulous spin doctoring going on here...

Mr Magoo, it's possible to construct a situation like you did where PC payers would come out better than a non payer, but only if you (as you did) have robbed PC from his profits earlier in the week.

  You said that if anyone should be refunded it should be those on more than 20 % commission paid.
   I just think that if anyone should be refunded anything it would be better to refund those that are long term loser rather than those long term winners paying more than 20 % in commission.
  I know reading the forum makes it hard to believe there actually are long term losers on here, but surely there has to be a few ?

Easy to see that certain people work for betfair on this thread, and are told to put the company line, isn't it?

It happened to me btw, I made a reasonable sum, paid a lot of pc, my edge disappeared quickly, and yes, I was too slow to spot it, meaning I lost most of what I had won. Did I get a rebate? Did I heck.

However, had I lost a load first before embarking upon the decent run, I wouldn't have paid a single penny.

Please could the pc defenders explain how this is fair and reasonable

Same here turtleshead.  Went on a fantastic run with increasing stakes during this run.
  Ended up paying a fortune in PC, then went on a bad run and went wey above 50 %.
  Have "worked" my way down to 37 % now, but doubt I'll see any refunding from Betfair ever...

  And I'm certainly not a trader like some on here seem to think are the only ones that will have to pay PC at any point.

I just think that if anyone should be refunded anything it would be better to refund those that are long term loser rather than those long term winners paying more than 20 % in commission.

I totally agree Eddie. They should introduce the all new liquidity generating premium charge to bring pc payers into line with your average gambler and reduce the max commission rate to 4% or less.



Same here turtleshead.  Went on a fantastic run with increasing stakes during this run.
Ended up paying a fortune in PC, then went on a bad run and went wey above 50 %.
Have "worked" my way down to 37 % now, but doubt I'll see any refunding from Betfair ever...

And I'm certainly not a trader like some on here seem to think are the only ones that will have to pay PC at any point.

That is unjust and, as I've said before, pc rebates should be given. Why don't you campaign for that instead of throwing your lot in with a division of Ferengi calimeros who continually cry about paying less of their profits in commission than everyone else.

PS I've never held the view that winners don't pay commission.

Mr Magoo's posts show how crazy it is for Ferengi sc.um to place their "fun bets" elsewhere as some have claimed to do. Sharp minds my @rse.

turtleshead

Do you understand the business world at all?

Shock! Horror! - A monopoly that charges higher prices to the customers that needs its products the most!Has this ever happened before? What do expect ? Charity and understanding?

I repeat, Betfair doesn't want or need regular winners. Its ideal business model is a seething masses of gamblers doing battle with each other- grinding each to dust.Sometimes winning, sometimes losing, but always coming back - afterall,their money lasted a while and they had fun!

In the end Betfair gets all the money deposited as commission.

Now along come the pros - sucking regular money out of the game. THIS IS NOW MONEY THAT BETFAIR CAN NO LONGER WIN!

This money needs replacing. To do this they need to continually attract more customers and persuade existing customers to deposit ever more.This costs money - huge sums in advertising and marketing.

Solution to the problem - Either get rid of the pros or make them pay more!

Hence the Premium Charge.

(You clearly don't understand what you are talking about! Poker Sites don't care because even the winners will have paid over 75%+ of their net winnings in rake - and probably a great deal more!)

^^^ Absolutely clueless beyond belief. Actually I take that back, you obviously do know what you are talking about, and are clearly a betfair plant to put about misinformation, lies and propaganda.

You clearly don't even know what the maximum rake taken per pot is at poker, or else you wouldn't make your utterly ridiculous claim about all winners having to have paid more than 75% of net winnings in rake!

Now go and peddle the company line elsewhere for anyone who is stupid enough to believe it. Nobody on here does.

This year I am around £150 up playing 5 euro heads up.

Ladbookes poker have taken estimated £530, in commision after you deduct rake back from their profit.

Johnny The guesser : Solution to the problem - Either get rid of the pros or make them pay more!

Hence the Premium Charge.

I never deposit a penny, but I withdraw every Sunday night. I never pay the PC and I never will. Betfair make as much out of me as I make for myself.

How would it be beneficial to them if I was no longer here?

I repeat, Betfair doesn't want or need regular winners. Its ideal business model is a seething masses of gamblers doing battle with each other- grinding each to dust.Sometimes winning, sometimes losing, but always coming back - afterall,their money lasted a while and they had fun!

In the end Betfair gets all the money deposited as commission.

-------------

except in that scenario BF ends up with loads of random and part-formed markets, and recreational punters go elsewhere.

if you want a competitive range of markets working to tight overrounds, you need to either become a bookmaker yourself or to incentivise pros to make your markets up for you.

Mr Magoo is correct.

I read a thread on another forum written at the time the pc was introduced that correctly identified how to get around the pc and that a bot was needed to do it efficiently.

If the pc was aimed at traders and arbers, then I have no doubt it has failed and is mostly catching punters on a winning streak.

I'd add that not only was the pc intended to (artifically?) inflate bf's profits prior to the float, it was intended to hugely inflate trading volumes.

Now there's a story for the Grauniad.

10 per cent would be "fair" , 20 just smacks of greed and a monopoly position being exploited .

I've paid 34.61% over the lifetime of my account. You 20%ers are the lucky ones!

There would still be calimeros at 10% (NAP).

mr magoo,

don't take this the wrong way....but....isn't the 34.61% your responsibility. what i mean by that is we all make choices as to how we use betfair, some punt, some trade. if your comm % is high, but someone else's is low, isn't that just based on your choice and/or skill?

when a company uses exploiting Procedure,s when holding a monopoly in a market place ie PC Charge....this is against the LAW!and company,s cant do it !

betfair get around this LAW by registering as a bookmaker and not an exchange.

This is why betfair dont chase people who withdraw all there funds before a PC payment... because the very very very last thing betfair want is to go to court!

If betfair were to be found at court to be breaking this LAW then it would break the compnay if ordered to pay refunds to customers.

Mr Magoo has it exactly right.

Part of bf's rationale in introducing the charge is to drive up volumes by incentivising pc players to take on near-to-breakeven bets.

The bf staff will actually go out of their way to tell you ways to avoid it--because avoiding it ramps up their volumes and gives them an increased rake.

Yes, keeping incentive on here for recreational betting even though prices are better elsewhere.

iz77778,

I'm not actually complaining about my commission rate. After all, I'm still here and placing bets! I just find it sickening that premium charge payers are the ones on here moaning and whinging loudly about their fees when they are paying the lowest commission possible. (Ok, accounts with low usage can pay less, but regular users can't)

To give you an indication of how laughable JTG's claim of poker players having to pay 75%+ of their winnings in rake, here is a set of figures which will show that to be a complete load of cobblers:

It is well known that decent stt players have a return of 10%+ roi, especially at the lower stakes. Heck, I even manage it myself some months, and I am a long, long, way from being one of the best players on the site I play at!

Total amount of rake in a $7 game is $0.32 (turbo). In other words, $6.68 goes in prize money and the rest to the site.

Now, let's have a look over a 1000 game sample...

Total staked: $7,000.00
ROI of 10%: $700.00
Total rake paid: $320.00

So this person will have paid $320 in fees out of the total profit of $1020, leaving a net gain of $700.00. I make that a total of 31.4% of profits paid in fees.

And that's not even including the fact that you get player points, which (unlike betfair's which just disappear each week!)if you get enough can be used for goods and even cash, which would comfortably bring that percentage below 30.

Oh, and they have proper customer service, (example, if you contact a moderator, such as if players are talking in foreign, they appear within 30 SECONDS to warn them - I don't think this applies to betfair!) comparing it to betfair's is a bit like comparing Barcelona's football team to the one of the Red Lion reserves. Emails are responded to promptly from helpfull, knowledgable, courteous staff. Betfair...best not go there..

The idea of them suddenly doing a betfair and deciding they want 75%+ of every person's profit is too comical for words!

Any comments about the above, JTG, or are you going to admit that you are an idiot with no idea what you are talking about

Mr Magoo, are you saying you wouldn't have complained about the Premium Charge if the treshold had been 50 % as your 34.6 % would make you a payer of the charge and among those paying the least commission of all Betfair users.
     And if you think you would have the right to complain in that case , apart from the obvious difference of 20 and 50 % ,what is the moral and principle differense in making 20 % ok , but not 50 % ?

turtleshead
I make that a total of 31.4% of profits paid in fees.

So 20% is a great deal then really!!

JTG spot on, cant be doing with whingers either...

Eddie the eagle,

That's a good question. I guess it comes down to how many people would be paying the premium charge at what % level.

At 20%, Betfair state that 'a small number (less than 0.5%) of our most successful customers will incur Premium Charges', which is a bit vague (who counts as their 'most successful customers'?) but it sounds like a small minority. Naturally, if the 20% was increased, more would pay. It's up to Betfair to pick the limit that the market will bear. If they put it too high, then I would make a loss and would have to go elsewhere or stop betting.

As a 'pro' (i.e. a lazy waster with no other job), much as I dislike being stuck with no real betting alternative to using Betfair to pay my bills, it's clear that Betfair as a company is free to charge what they like. There is no moral issue. No-one compels us to bet here, but we still do because it is currently the best place. Times may change.

turtleshead

LOLOL - you pick an example of a micro game with less than a 5% fee and a long term ROI that's 'world class' at meaningful levels.... and YOU STILL COME UP WITH 31.4%...AND A CAP!

Many many more pay 10% fees and have a ROI well below 10%.

Don't overlook the cash game grinders.

Either way,and returning to your original nonsense - that's why poker sites accomodate the winners - because they more than pay their way!

You must agree now  - A 20% Premium Charge seems a bargain.

Oh, a micro game is it? And only games on sites with high fees count in your world?

In case you are not aware, (it seems pretty obvious that you aren't!) plenty of players grind a living at low stakes, not always in England, but in countries where the standard of living is a lot lower. There are many who play 10, 20, or even more games at once (maybe with other people playing for them at the same time, but that's another issue..) and can easily grind out enough profit to make it worthwhile. The example I gave is perfectly normal, if you bothered to take your head out of your arse and looked at the site now, you'd see players doing exactly that.

If people are stupid enough to play on sites and pay 10% fees instead of the biggest one in the world for less than half that, all I can say is, more fool them! The only justification for doing that would be is if the standard is so bad that they could make a decent roi even after paying that amount of fee. Even in that case they would be nowhere near your truly laughable claim of 75%+.

Stop talking rubbish and just admit you are have no idea what you are talking about, instead of digging yourself deeper with every additional post.

So it's "perfectly normal" for guys to play 20 SNG turbos at the same time and make a ROI of 10%.

95% of poker players lose. Guys making 10% ROI will be right at the top of the food chain.

Anyway these guys, according to you own figures, still pay 31.4% of their profit to the site.

This is their contribution to site overheads/IT/marketing/admin etc etc.

Why do you object so strongly to paying just 20%?

Mr Magoo
01 Jun 11 18:24
iz77778,

I'm not actually complaining about my commission rate. After all, I'm still here and placing bets! I just find it sickening that premium charge payers are the ones on here moaning and whinging loudly about their fees when they are paying the lowest commission possible. (Ok, accounts with low usage can pay less, but regular users can't)


I don't understand where this belief comes from.

Feck spouts this utter tripe almost every day but anybody with an ounce of savvy can see why he does it.

Where are all these PC whingers? Disregard the one off merchants who log in after their PC reduction and are never heard from again because they are as long term as a fart and who have we got? Where are these 'calimaros' that Feck creates for his arguments?

Strip his decent punctuation and dressed up arguments and you most likely have a man who, when speaking face to face, will show signs of nervousness, embarrassment, avoidance, immaturity and outright weirdness. He smacks of a single man in his late 40's who has absolutely nothing to do other than front one man armies. He has no argument. The second he has an argument is the second he contradicts himself anyway by being on the damn site.

You are not comparing like with like, because that 20% is invented by some bullsh1t calculation with implied commission which even betfair themselves can't explain properly.

And also, if someone had a great run on a poker site and won loads (for example several big results in multi table tournaments) do you see the poker site saying, Mr X, you've just won 25k in the last week, we need 5k in premium charge to replace the money you are taking out of the site, for marketing, to attract new customers blah blah blah because you've only paid $50 in tournament fees...erm no I think not somehow

Now do you see how ridiculous your comparison is?

It appears that you can't understand the concept that it costs Betfair far more than the 5% commission rate to replace the money sucked out of the site by the regular winners.

Betfair need depositors to churn their money over and over again generating ever increasing commissions, not hoovered up sharks within days, producing but a single commission charge.

It does not make any commercial sense to spend £millions in marketing and advertising in constantly bringing new money to the site, when the vast majority of this new money ends up in the pockets of the pros.

The premium charge addresses this issue.

Does it make anyone else think how deviously clever the PC is in its construction when, as an interested observer, you can follow the pro and con arguments on here between well informed posters, and swing from supporting one side to the other as they are posted up.
When you really dig deep into the theoretical structure of the PC it seems to be just like a dog chasing its tail.

Christ. From which rock have you been hibernating under FAFH?

Nah rocket, I just mostly read the forum these days and not post.
Nothing new comes up really, all just a regurgitation of old matters.

I don't believe that for a second.

Believe what?
I can read and stay silent ? It's tough I admit.
Or that all these discussion points are old hat ?

It appears that you can't understand the concept that it costs Betfair far more than the 5% commission rate to replace the money sucked out of the site by the regular winners.

That claim is false.

Sports betting generates a whopping subsidy to all the other money losing carp bf churns out.

As I pointed out earlier, the pc is all about pumping up the profit and turnover numbers.

At 20%, Betfair state that 'a small number (less than 0.5%) of our most successful customers will incur Premium Charges', which is a bit vague (who counts as their 'most successful customers'?) but it sounds like a small minority. Naturally, if the 20% was increased, more would pay. It's up to Betfair to pick the limit that the market will bear. If they put it too high, then I would make a loss and would have to go elsewhere or stop betting.


The all new liquidity generating Premium Charge = (GrossProfit - 5 * CommissionGenerated) / 2

charges the non liquidity providers more without affecting almost all gamblers.

Feck spouts this utter tripe almost every day but anybody with an ounce of savvy can see why he does it.

Why does he do it?


Where are all these PC whingers? Disregard the one off merchants who log in after their PC reduction and are never heard from again because they are as long term as a fart and who have we got? Where are these 'calimaros' that Feck creates for his arguments?

You post this on a thread packed with long standing pc calimeros.


Strip his decent punctuation and dressed up arguments and you most likely have a man who, when speaking face to face, will show signs of nervousness, embarrassment, avoidance, immaturity and outright weirdness. He smacks of a single man in his late 40's who has absolutely nothing to do other than front one man armies. He has no argument. The second he has an argument is the second he contradicts himself anyway by being on the damn site.

You sound like the very type you're describing. Answer this argument r sole.


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.

feck -
with your new system, at the odds of '2' how much would a customer have to bet to win 100??

£100.

sorry feck......i'll be specific -

a pc customer who has to pay the new rate that you are suggesting, how much will they have to bet to win 100 net?

Who actually gives a Feck what the Eejit thinks ?

it's the third time i've asked...........no reply.....hmmmm.....

all fun bets  on hard to break even footy bets  is now  in a losing p/l    due to up to 26% take  out


trillions of pounds of turnover  is elsewhere

what with the betfair hols and sliding points etc while paying pc

all that is pointless and too much for the avg guy

good idea to put it on 5% for all 

no fuss   just 5%  and stop there  easy for everyone to understand

Who actually gives a Feck what the Eejit thinks ?

You clearly do.

a pc customer who has to pay the new rate that you are suggesting, how much will they have to bet to win 100 net?

It's impossible to answer without knowing their lifetime profit, commission paid, commission generated and profit/loss for current pc week. If had O.C.D. such that nothing other than a net profit of 100 would satisfy my neurosis I'd do it with a bookmaker otherwise I'd work out my average commission on profit and use that to work out what stake I'd require to return approximate net winnings of 100. HTH.

just saying cos i win on one market   

and that means i am a loser  on footy market  due  to upto 26 % take outs

something is not right 

say bet  100 times on evens pay out is roughy 97%

with pc with no rebate 100 times on evens is roughy 74%[smiley:crazy]

therefore a big losing p/l

cant say any more  i give up  off to the beach  as it a sunny day

no fuss   just 5%  and stop there  easy for everyone to understand

Problem is chris, those who really do understand would leave you traders with little more than a staring contest.

i think  betfair  will grow stronger and bigger   if it a simple 5% for all

if it was 5% on footy market   i would dive in and bet like a manic   but at 26%  it oh dear     forget it and that killed the markets

Only TurtlesBrain would believe you trading like a maniac would make up for all those 2%'ers who would move elsewhere.

I still don't understand why % of Gross profit over a time period is any kind of way to charge someone something for anything.

Imagine a wholesaler of toilet rolls phoning up the shops that were selling them for £1.25 instead of £1.21 and demanding an extra tuppence per bag.

WHEN THEY ADVERTISE ,SHOWING HOW BETFAIR GIVE YOU BIGGER ODDS

THEY SHOULD HAVE A NOTE UNDERNEATH ,SAYING IF YOUR A REGULAR WINNER YOU WILL HAVE 20% DEDUCTED

THEY SHOULD HAVE IT IN CAPS LOCK ,

JOIN BETFAIR AND GET BIGGER ODDS IF YOUR A LOOSER

'fecks world'


guy 1 - walks into 'honest johns betting parlour' and slaps down a 100 on the fav.


guys 2 - logs on to betfair and slaps down his calculator to work out lifetime profit, commission paid, commission generated and profit/loss for current pc week, to work out his average commission on profit, and use that to work out what stake he requires to return approximate net winnings of 100 on the fav.


have i missed anything feck?

IM SURE THEY WOULD GET LOADS OF MORE CUSTOMERS IF THEY ADVERTISED FOR LOOSERS ,LOOKING FOR BIGGER ODDS

and why the big players on 1 to 2% surely they can get 20% better odds

bring out 5%

Feck N. Eejit
02 Jun 11 11:05 Joined: 10 Jan 02 | Topic/replies: 3,889 | Blogger: Feck N. Eejit's blog
Only TurtlesBrain would believe you trading like a maniac would make up for all those 2%'ers who would move elsewhere.

FECK give it a break i never trade footy   just having fun bet

   And  sadly  it not here dont u get it Eejit    stop calling me turtlesbrain   

and yes  i am lower than u 

i cant  work in a job  cos there too many folks walk over me AND MAKE FUN OVER ME

BETFAIR   IS MY LIFE  AND  PAY THE BILLS

what do u what    for feck s  just give up mate  u getting boring

i love betfair    fullstop[:D]

Do wah Diddy u can take over   cos u are a hero    not  sure  what feck upto    must be back in 1960s

'fecks world'


guy 1 - walks into 'honest johns betting parlour' and slaps down a 100 on the fav.


guys 2 - logs on to betfair and slaps down his calculator to work out lifetime profit, commission paid, commission generated and profit/loss for current pc week, to work out his average commission on profit, and use that to work out what stake he requires to return approximate net winnings of 100 on the fav.


have i missed anything feck?

Nothing apart from the fact that it's betfair's world not mine. In my world the default commission system would be turnover based and people would have to opt in to the more complex system. The fact that most of the whinging pc calimeros would opt into the complex system rather than stick with the "level playing field" should tell you something but I somehow doubt it.

And  sadly  it not here dont u get it Eejit    stop calling me turtlesbrain 

I was referring to the forum idiot Turtleshead.

every time u do post  the gooble ****   i do in fact never read  it   it seem 

repeat repeat repeat and very 1950s  and a bookie friend
betfair is very 2020s   if they calm down

l

why is anyone discussing feck's "all new" (read, been banging on about it forever) as if it's got any chance of happening?

it's not a BF idea, it's just some random bo11ocks this sad obsessive puts at the end of the dozens of whinging posts he saturation-bombs every potentially interesting thread with every day.

Mr Magoo
01 Jun 11 20:16   











Eddie the eagle,

That's a good question. I guess it comes down to how many people would be paying the premium charge at what % level.

At 20%, Betfair state that 'a small number (less than 0.5%) of our most successful customers will incur Premium Charges', which is a bit vague (who counts as their 'most successful customers'?) but it sounds like a small minority. Naturally, if the 20% was increased, more would pay. It's up to Betfair to pick the limit that the market will bear. If they put it too high, then I would make a loss and would have to go elsewhere or stop betting.

As a 'pro' (i.e. a lazy waster with no other job), much as I dislike being stuck with no real betting alternative to using Betfair to pay my bills, it's clear that Betfair as a company is free to charge what they like. There is no moral issue. No-one compels us to bet here, but we still do because it is currently the best place. Times may change.

  Why would you make a loss if they put it higher ?

By definition, PC will not turn you into a long term loser even if raised to 90 %, only reduce your profit.

chrisblues
02 Jun 11 10:17   

i think  betfair  will grow stronger and bigger   if it a simple 5% for all

Every once in a while someone comes up with this suggestion, but those who do are certainly the ones who least understand how and why this site became such a success.

  5 % for all is just a stupid suggestion and will never happen.

'Dog chasing tail' is about right ,  Frog

By definition, PC will not turn you into a long term loser even if raised to 90 %, only reduce your profit.

It will turn significant numbers of pc payers into long term losers, because the pc isn't rebated when you lose.

More importantly, most high volume traders, the bot traders especially, will have figured out the solution to the pc. It aint rocket science. So the pc will more and more be paid by succesful punters.

correct pxb.

if we follow the pc money we can see that it flows from the 'losers' account to the 'winners' account, and finishes at betfair's account.

not sure why feck and others are wanting to increase the obligation onto the 'loser' even more.

iz still thinks pc payers just win more to cover their pc. Isn't it good of the losers to lose more to accommodate them.

feck

so here's what you are saying -

- last week feck had 100 at '2' but did not need to cover pc; therfore he only needed to put on 100 to win 100 net.

- this week the feckster is due to pay pc...he puts his 100 on again at '2' to win.....80 net...!!


he's 20 down from last week, betting at the same price, same amount, and is happy with that outcome...!

I'm perfectly happy as, according to you, a loser will come forward to donate that £20 to me.

feck if you haven't included the price of the pc in your bet then you will be 20 short, end of story.

Only if it wins. If it loses I'll get around £20 off my pc.

has this whole debate been a huge wind-up from you feck??

I think you're the one who's fishing iz.

"because the pc isn't rebated when you lose."
To some extent it IS a bit because if you lose, for a period you're covered as it's always against the total, which the loss will affect + there is implied commisssion.

I would though like to see the equation for commission + implied commission NOT halved by / 2 though. I understand why they do it but .. it means the 'rebate' etc isn't as much as I think it should be.

Iz77777,Feck does not bet on the site ,he spends his life on PC threads.

frames once confessed to having never "bet" on the site. He spends his life stalking me and attending coffee mornings for Feck's b1tches.

I realized fairly early on that the bulk of the money in some markets isn't retail bets.

When I win in cricket markets which I do quite a lot, the loser is some mug in Mumbai who has never heard of bf.