BF bombard me with phone calls after forum PC criticism

only 0.71% makes 15k a year

then only make  less how much less


therefore 

it CANT BE DONE    THE END OF THE WORLD IS HIGH   AND ASKING 25% HIGHER ON FUN FOOTY    BETS [>o]

Investor - theyre ivestigating -so hopefully i will hear soon  ,could be a technical glitch

Investor-gating 

only 0.71% makes 15k a year in year 2003 or 2004

if that right why bother with the pc

surely more than 10% is elsewhere
which ticked in trillions by now

If you want to avoid the pc and pay a much higher percentage of your profit in commission maybe you should try gambling.

I am a gambler at heart feckwit.
Unfortunately none of the highstreet firms will take my bets, so I'm stuck with betfair and paying the PC due to my strike rate.

I shall continue to moan about it thanks.
I see it as unfair surcharge on success.
It's short termism from betfair.
Much better in the long run if they promoted the fact that people can win long term. Much as successful poker sites do.

As betfair continues to fail to run a particularly successful poker site, I doubt they'll stop the huge own goal of the PC.

But I'll continue to argue my case in the slight hope that they'll see the light and ditch this charge.


You I'm sure will continue to jump in every thread and defend it. Often with lies and mis-information.

five cells left, feel free to keep complaining and spreading your black propaganda. It's only a matter of time before betfair will decide they've had enough of you and your ilk and start charging you as much as the real liquidity providers are paying. And guess what, you'll still be here b1tching.


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

Coming to an exchange near you soon [;)]

I really hope so Feck. Your all new liquidity generating [] Premium Charge will be exactly what people like me need. Just not in the sense you think.

Wow, another "walk out" of the famous liquidity. ROFPML

while doing your nuts no doubt.

Almost as amusing as your claim that betfair aren't a monopoly

Come on then, explain to me why no poker sites charge a 20% premium tax on their winners

The pc was implemented for a specific reason that would not apply to poker.

You're just wrong.

The same logic behind the PC could be applied to poker.
The top players pay a tiny percentage of their profit in rake(commission)

Why don't betfair apply the same rules to poker?

Because it's a competitve market. That's why.

It's because even guys with 10% ROI paying 5% house fees are paying over 31% of profit in site fees. You tell him turtle!

Maybe their returns from poker are satisfactory compared to the work and effort in designing and maintaining that particular platform. Who knows?
As I've said numerous times before, none of us knows, or seems to know, the true facts and figures behind the reasoning for the imposition of the PC .

catfloppo
The pc was implemented for a specific reason that would not apply to poker.

five leaves left
You're just wrong.

The same logic behind the PC could be applied to poker.
The top players pay a tiny percentage of their profit in rake(commission)

Why don't betfair apply the same rules to poker?

catfloppo
The pc was implemented for a specific reason that would not apply to poker.

What were those reasons and why don't they apply to poker?

I've just told you...EVEN THE POKER WINNERS WILL PAY WELL OVER 20% OF THEIR WINNINGS IN SITE FEES...

The high stakes cash players won't or anyone who wins a decent size MTT.

When I mean a decent size. I mean ones with a 1st prize of 6 figures.

How would the poker millions winner feel each week if pokerstars said we want 20% of that mate?

And you could win a £1m a year on here and not pay the PC...

The pc was introduced because some users were paying too little of their gross profit back in commission and it's not worth having people on the site if they are not paying their way.

yes, as long as you do it slowly.


The top high stakes cash players and top MTT's players will not be paying anywhere near 20%.

So betfair are saying if you get too good at winning you can p1ss off.

Why don't they do that with poker?

On the MTT, the poker site will have taken around 10% of all the entrance fees...their fees have been paid in full. It's a different pricing structure completely.

Nope, they are saying that you have to pay a minimum of 20% of your gross profit back in commission.  It has nothing to do with being good at winning, most big winners are not affected by the pc.

It's about winning too efficiently.

could someone let me have the portal address plz and a brief explanation of what I am looking for in relation to how close I am to paying PC?

Thanks in advance

Its about having relatively few losing markets.  Is that necessarily efficient?

https://premiumcharge.betfair.com/PremiumPortal/portal

Ask betfair Mr Fu.

You've still no answered why they don't apply the same 20% rule to poker cat.

I doubt I'll get an answer, though it's obvious to anyone with 5 brain cells left, like myself.

Betfair have a virtual monopoly when it comes to betting exchanges.
When it comes to poker they're working in a very competitive market.

I appreciate the link and also that some of you seem a little tired to be getting stick but would someone mind telling me what the red ticks and green x's mean?

thanks

If you havent realised already fiveleaves its more a charge on turnover not on winnings.  If it was simple enough just to increase your stakes by only 20% it wouldnt effect hardly anyone.  It isn't of course and those people who win and think if they had a bigger bank and could double their stakes (effectively 5 times the PC threshold) they'll win nearly twice as much should take a reality check. 

Whether it's a commercial success depends on whether it generates enough cash to compensate for the loss of goodwill from probably the very group of people who were most likely to give Betfair free publicicty and advocate the site.

You need all ticks to pay the charge.

Over 250 markets. That used to be a year, but they moved the goalposts on that one.

In profit over the lifetime of your account.

The 'Total Charges' figure to be under 20%

There is quite an irony that the reason given for the charge was to cover the cost of advertising for new clients

By: This user is online. catfloppo
Date Joined: 16 Nov 06 Add contact When: 14 Jun 11 23:27 The pc was introduced because some users were paying too little of their gross profit back in commission and it's not worth having people on the site if they are not paying their way.

Exactly. All summed up in one sentence, not sure why we need 11 pages of BS before that point is accepted...

Thanks Five, i have ticks for markets and gross profit. On my weekly account i have ticks on the gross profit and the total charges which is 3.72%.

the only cross I have is total charges which stands at 20.70%

I have way more than 5 brain cells, five leaves, but I can't see how what I have described applies to poker.

what does that mean to me?

Johnny The Guesser 14 Jun 11 23:24 

"And you could win a £1m a year on here and not pay the PC..."

Yes, but you could. With poker there is zero chance.

With Betfair, people who win a couple of hundred a month could well end up paying the PC tax. How exactly does that equate to winning too efficiently, or draining money from the site, or any of the other bullsh1t excuses I hear again and again?

"On the MTT, the poker site will have taken around 10% of all the entrance fees...their fees have been paid in full. It's a different pricing structure completely"

The best MTT players can easily get an ROI of 100%, thereby making their total fees in rake miles under 20% of their profits.

Spot the difference?

Have you got any more stupid comparisons, JTG, or are you fed up with trying to defend the indefencible?

Oh, and still waiting for you to retract your truly ludicrous claim about all winning poker players paying 75% or more of their winnings in rake

It means you're getting very close to paying the charge, unfortunately.


Indeed CB.

An advertising slogan like - 'Come to betfair, but if you win too often we'll stick a 20% surcharge on you', probably wouldn't be a winner.

As I've said in previous posts, gambling is about selling a dream.
Poker sites understand that.
That's why their top players don't only not pay anywhere near 20% of their profit to the site, but are actually sponsored into events and used to advertise the sites and help sell the 'dream'

"The pc was introduced because some users were paying too little of their gross profit back in commission and it's not worth having people on the site if they are not paying their way"

Yes, and like a lot of what betfair say, it was a total pile of crap, yet people on the forum still repeat the myth....almost as if they work for them...

It would have been very easy to find a system which just did this if that was the aim...instead of which they found something which clobbered loads of people including those who lose long term, those who make tiny profits, etc, etc, etc.

TBF I guess it's better than an honest Highstreet firms slogan -

'Come and bet with us, but if you win too often then p1ss off'

heynoodles Date Joined: 18 Jan 05
Add contact | Send message When: 15 Jun 11 00:00 Joined: Date Joined: 18 Jan 05 | Topic/replies: 5,449 | Blogger: heynoodles's blog
By: This user is online. catfloppo
Date Joined: 16 Nov 06 Add contact When: 14 Jun 11 23:27 The pc was introduced because some users were paying too little of their gross profit back in commission and it's not worth having people on the site if they are not paying their way.  Exactly. All summed up in one sentence, not sure why we need 11 pages of BS before that point is accepted...

.......

It's got little or nothing to do with paying too little a percentage of your profit or paying your way, not even sure its a good way of putting a little spin on the decision.  It's purely a commercial decision introduced to hopefully increase revenue and shareholder value.  Every user has a choice to accept it or leave.

tx five. gl sir.

What are you basing that on Clydebank? I thought a certain tennis courtsider bragged he was paying virtually no commission on huge winnings and this ruffled a few feathers

GL to you too Mr Fu.

Don't expect anymore than an email when you start paying.


That's what gets my goat almost as much as having to pay this charge.
The total lack of dialogue between betfair and it's customers when it comes to this charge.


Has there ever been a Q&A session on here as they have on the poker forum from time to time?

Also, I wouldnt assume no pc payers would promote Betfair. Why not? And why would this put a prospective newcomer off the site... you can win so regularly on BF that they had to introduce a new charge to slow you down.

I thought a certain tennis courtsider bragged he was paying virtually no commission on huge winnings and this ruffled a few feathers

If that's the problem that betfair are trying to solve then the PC is a very poor solution.

you can win so regularly on BF that they had to introduce a new charge to slow you down.

What a winning slogan.

The first time BF actually totally bans someone for winning, then it will be all over.
The rest is all just noise from different people with different agendas.

btw, have any of you proper brains out there worked out an excel formula to tell you how much headroom you've got left on the PC? as a close-enough-for-rock-n-roll calculation I multiply toal charges by five, subtract gross profit then multiply what's left by 1.1.

but I'd appreciate something that used the data on the portal page and my commission rate to give a precise figure.

Some heynoodles but hardly any I would say.  Far more people who have paid it are very negative about them I reckon.  I'm very circumspect about the charges and I can see the commercial reasons for the decision, I even reasonably regularly have amicable conversations with Betfair.  I want Betfair to be succesful but there's no conception of spreading the love.  It's like you can forgive but you can never forget.

FAFH
I can't imagine it would ever be in BFs interests to ban anyone as they run on different lines to a bookies.

When has their ever been a true  winner on BF ?

I ask this Q because unless you die unexpectedly with a plus account you can never say at any time you're a lifetime winner .And how many winners are going to quit on a winning note ?

I mention all  this because i did get round to asking a a guy at BF  what the position would be, if over a number of years as a 'winner' if in a moment of madness you blow all you have previously gained  ?

The answer was that there is no refund on premium charge payments ,which i think is a little unfair as it goes against what the premium charge stands for surely ?
His response was that any sizeable  losses would render future winnings free of PC  for a fair time.

My point was , how many gamblers would carry on after losing their bank ?  I don't think many would.

Me, I am going to quit in profit.  As soon as my strategy is not viable I will quit.

Cat,  you mean when your strategy has been rumbled presumably ?

Otherwise even the very best  strategies are prone to risk  ,  an unlikely sequence of results could still badly hit the very best gamblers ,it all  depends very much on your 'bouncebackability' after that.

....and your bank reserves in some cases!!

Fear is in the heart of every gambler [:(]

its about having relatively few losing markets.  Is that necessarily efficient?

You could have 99% losing markets and pay pc

The pc was introduced because some users were paying too little of their gross profit back in commission and it's not worth having people on the site if they are not paying their way

If thats true why are Betfair offering people concessions on pc

Who are they offering concessions to?


Also could someone answer my previous question please.

Has someone from betfair ever come on here and had a Q&A session with regards the PC?

fll, pxb has said on the first page that bf gave him a concession on the pc, if it wasn't true I'm sure Betfair would have removed the post.

Well maybe if someone from betfair came on here we would get an answer.

It's something they do all the time on the poker forum.

Fairly sure there has not been a QandA just about the PC although it has been discussed amongst many subjects on the Q and A sessions BF have.There used to be a BF mouthpiece on the forum ,no not Feck,who would tell us how the 2nd lot of PC rules ( no 250 market threshold,only one £1000 let off) would get less people in the net.Not sure if that ones correct ,Pythia was his username but not been seen for a while on the PC threads.

Cheers frames.
If they ever have another one. I'd wonder if they'd give us actual figures to prove this statement.

no 250 market threshold,only one £1000 let off would get less people in the net

Anecdotally (which clearly isn't always a

That's why their top players don't only not pay anywhere near 20% of their profit to the site, but are actually sponsored into events and used to advertise the sites and help sell the 'dream'

The top players were always paying way in excess of 20% of their profits on betfair. Trying to "sell the dream" using your average pc payer would've seen betfair the subject of a Panorama special.

ooops not sure what happened there.

I was going to say -


Anecdotally (which clearly isn't always a great guide), it appears to be catching more people in the net and more small to medium winners like myself.

Thinking about it he might have said they would collect less PC ,less people in the net might be correct with the lifetime rule although only getting the £1000 allowance once might counteract that.
I very much doubt we will ever get the figures FLL.

Coachbuster, it is gradually deteriorating i imagine as a result of more people competing with me.  It will take we a while of losing to distinguish between a bad run and the fact that my edge has turned negative but I am more likely to quit prematurely than blow my accrued winnings chasing.

You keep coming out with this rubbish feckwit, with absolutely no evidence.

How many people do you know who pay this charge?

I know a fair few and none of them are doing anything panaroma would be interested in.
They're just people who put time and effort into making a profit.
Usually without the use of any aids. Software etc.

It's why it would be nice if someone on betfair came on here to answer some questions and clear up some of the myths.

Or maybe they're pleased with your work feckwit?

I know a fair few and none of them are doing anything panaroma would be interested in.

If they're anything like yourself I doubt they'd be "selling a dream" either. Even if they were big winners why could they not "sell the dream". Would "I'm talentless but won a million on betfair" cause a stampede but "I'm talentless and won 800K on betfair" bring about a "fk betting with them" general response?

Blank

You could have 99% losing markets and pay pc

That's possibly theoretically true but I doubt there are many, if any, real life examples of this.  Either way, I don't see how it makes a strategy 'efficient' other than in terms of gross profit/commission ratio and this is certainly no measure of success as many pc payers seem to think.

If thats true why are Betfair offering people concessions on pc

Who?

catfloppo     15 Jun 11 11:16 
Coachbuster, it is gradually deteriorating i imagine as a result of more people competing with me.  It will take we a while of losing to distinguish between a bad run and the fact that my edge has turned negative but I am more likely to quit prematurely than blow my accrued winnings chasing.

_________________________

What i find on BF are 'windows of opportunity'  i get the impression there are many people on here trying  varying strategies without giving themselves long enough to see through a sizeable sample and therefore tend to give up easily ,maybe they haven't thought through the strategy enough .

Either way, these guys come and go and last for around 2 weeks at a time IME ... make sure your competition is permanent before throwing in the towell.[;)]

sorry to go off topic of the thread btw

You can pay it with almost any amount of losing markets really, if your average win and average loss are the same amount you would pay it with around 53% of winning markets. It's not about having few losing markets.

pxb got a concession.

I think you need to check your sums, blank ;)

What concession did he get?

I think you need to check your sums, blank ;)

checked, on 2% if gives 20.58% so around 53% is correct

What concession did he get?

a 13 week holiday, you could read it yourself

You might have missed my post a few post's up. pxb said this on page 1 of this thread.

heynoodles
Date Joined: 18 Jan 05
Add contact | Send message
When: 15 Jun 11 00:00
Joined:
Date Joined: 18 Jan 05
| Topic/replies: 5,451 | Blogger: heynoodles's blog
By: This user is online. catfloppo
Date Joined: 16 Nov 06 Add contact When: 14 Jun 11 23:27 The pc was introduced because some users were paying too little of their gross profit back in commission and it's not worth having people on the site if they are not paying their way.

Exactly. All summed up in one sentence, not sure why we need 11 pages of BS before that point is accepted...
Rate reply:
0 (0 Ratings)
The report button allows you to report a post, comment, reply or another user's behaviour.

I do accept that point. I just think payments should occur when draining of liquidity takes place (withdrawal of profit). Over the lifetime of my account I've paid Betfair a lot more than I've taken out in winnings myself.

If Betfair took PC at withdrawal:
1) Liquidity would improve, as consistent winners would be incentivised to put money to work in markets rather than withdrawing (with a compounding effect similar to being able to defer taxes).
2) Betfair would make more from these users overall as they would tend to be bigger players (if you're going to just leave money sitting in an account, you may as well withdraw).
3) The rebates that almost every customer is in favour of (both those for and against PC) would no longer be required.
4) PC avoidance (by legitimate means) would be so unattractive that most wouldn't bother.

In 2009 I paid more in PC than commission. In 2008 (since introduction) I also paid more PC than commisison. By 2010 I paid more than 12x as much commission as PC, as I was actively looking for ways to lower costs. With 100%+ average capital growth, the PC I paid would have likely compounded to a significant sum, had I been able to defer.

As I've mentioned before, there is a very big difference between a guy with a £3k balance making £1k a week and withdrawing it, and a guy with a £60-70k balance making £1k a week and keeping that money on the exchange to bet with in order to gradually increase profits. One could be said to be draining liquidity very quickly, the other is providing it. The way PC is charged does not recognise this discrepancy.

100%+ average capital growth per year I mean...

3) The rebates that almost every customer is in favour of (both those for and against PC) would no longer be required.

The reason they gave for not giving rebates was it was too easy to fiddle your way out of it. Your suggestion wouldn't make that any harder or less likely Investor.

Sorry blank, I was rather cheekily referring to the fact that 47% is rather smaller that the 99% in your original assertion.

I have read the post by pxb and think, if true, that it's very odd indeed and can understand why it would make others angry.

btw, 6% is a very big edge for someone on 2%, is this a real example that you know of?

Feck N. Eejit
Date Joined: 10 Jan 02
Add contact | Send message
When: 15 Jun 11 12:22
Joined:
Date Joined: 10 Jan 02
| Topic/replies: 3,983 | Blogger: Feck N. Eejit's blog
3) The rebates that almost every customer is in favour of (both those for and against PC) would no longer be required.

The reason they gave for not giving rebates was it was too easy to fiddle your way out of it. Your suggestion wouldn't make that any harder or less likely Investor.


Spot on Feck, in fact I would go even further and say that it would be easier to fiddle out of using my suggestion.

That's the only downside I can see though (although you could also consider having to give rebates for legitimate losses as downside for Betfair). The question is: is it worth it for Betfair to have to deal with this issue in exchange for the benefits. Liquidity is the lifeblood of the exchange so anything that can be done to improve it has a very high value.

No thats not an example that I know of cat

On the point of rebates etc...

BF wants to encourage gamblers NOT 'businesses'.

It makes sound commercial sense to review an individual's PC with this consideration in mind.

Just like every other business on the planet - its pricing policy seeks to maximise returns.

A customer grumbles....so review account history/profile 

"Is this customer good for our business?"

If the answer is "No" - You charge him more...he either pays up or leaves.

If the answer is "Yes" - then price structures should be reviewed.

@investor, though it's an interesting idea the deduction at withdrawal thing wouldn't work imo.

to stop your account going into the red they'd need to hold back the maximum liability as they do with retained commission now, so the customer would get no benefit, and BF would have to wait an indeterminate time before it became income - so their revenue stream would become unpredictable and in the short term fall.

actually, that's wrong - ignore that.

"Is this customer good for our business?"

______________________________________

and who would you determine is good for business , Jonny ?  A lot of losers on here may only lose a fiver a week and will stick to that level for years  ,they can't be good for BF can they  ?

catfloppo someone betting full time and making a profit isnt likely to wait until he makes a loss before he quits unless hes partially  addicted.....unless you are factoring back their perceived  opportunity cost and deducting that from their profit.  Even then someone betting full time could still run out of cash soon enough if he doesnt make enough gambling to cover his living expenses.

The opponents of the principle of the pc need to consider in what circs it is attractive for bf to have a winning customer.

The answers can only be when they are providing liquidity i.e. they populate markets and 'serve' recreational players or when they are taking negative expectation bets w/ a lot of tail risk (I'd suspect far more winners are doing this than they suppose). Otherwise, why wd bf want to have winners who are just cheese-paring?

The same principle applies to the shop bookies I bet at. Staff have both turnover and profit targets. My bets help for the first but not the second. Their solution is to limit me for prices flagged up as high-risk by Head Office and hope that I put more on the losers than the winners (and if I don't, it's the price setters and risk managers who'll take the flak).

The big mistake bf made was charging a single comm rate to traders and outright position takers. Imv they shd have rectified this absolutely fundamental error outright rather than introducing the charge. Poss. way to do this include differential comm. rates per number of bets submitted per market, per direction of trades per runner or increasing minimum bet sizes w/ lifetime site profits.

Not all are feasible tho, so it seems we will be stuck with a flawed charge for a long time yet.

So a good BF customer is

Player A ,deposits £100/month on average ,never has a balance above £500, never withdraws , pays BF £800 commission( is this possible ? ) during the year.

Player B ,deposits 3k ,withdraws 1k/month(impressive),never has a balance under 3k ,pays BF £4000 commission/PC during a 12 month period.

Player C,deposits 30k ,withdraws 70k at end of year ,pays BF 20k comm/PC during the 12 months.Obviously has 30k min as his balance through the year.


They love player A but how much do they love B and C ?

the issue with player B though was that for many people the figuree were more like:

deposit 1K (as a one off)
withdraw 10K a year
pay BF 600 quid a year commission.

CLYDEBANK29, I can only really comment on my own circumstances but I think I would need to stand at least two or three losing months before concluding that my edge had gone, depending on how big the losses were.  Even then I would probably dip my toe in again a few months later to see if things had improved.  I am not in any way an addict, just realistic about the fluctuations on here.

catfloppo, my sense is that winning gamblers are addicts who have just learnt how to win. It may be slightly different for anyone who bets in a highly automated way and has no interest in the underlying events.

I have a business opportunity coming up for which I wd have to stop gambling part-time (but seriously) for a while. It's going to be much more lucrative per hour spent than making books on here and I'm interested in whether I'll be able to give the habit a kick.

isn't a business gambling in itself though askari ? i mean it's not like donning a cap and going to work is it ?

It is coachbuster and I have always told my family that 'the horses are the only things in life that don't let me down'--in other words that I am less dependent on other people's whims and the caprices of fortune on here than I wd be if I were fully committed to the 'real world'.

Of course there are ups and downs on bf but nothing it shd be impossible to control w/ a winning strategy and good risk management.

In the end I think it's what you enjoy doing and what you're good at. I'm fairly good at gambling but there will be many, many better, and it's prob. right that there are other things I cd do that would be more socially useful and more remunerative.

i agree with the socially useful part (although fewer and fewer jobs seem to fit that bill).
This is a zero sum game and there will be very few winners long term ,we will all become food on the Betfair sea floor eventually !

I'm not sure how i could be useful in the real world . Good luck anyway askari.

askari1,
I do use automated betting.  Before the api I made a small profit but I don't think I would have the b@lls to gamble online for a living.

catfloppo, I've never been able to put together a compiler that identifies value bets. I have an instinct for them some of the time but this isn't anything that can be formalised. And my background isn't in putting together models or proving hypotheses.

Any edge I have comes from visual information and a read on trainer, horse and crowd psychology.

In other words, just done with mirrors and thus just perhaps only transitory success ?

Compilers, mirrors, wtf are you two on???

A roll ?