General Betting
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 495 comments are related to the topic:
BF bombard me with phone calls after forum PC criticism
BF bombard me with phone calls after forum PC criticism
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 495
|
By:
Five Leaves, they were happy enough to stand big-hitting Asians' money in volume, depriving the exchange users of the opportunity of matching it, until the variance seems to have got a little too scary for them.
Their profits are bettors' losses less all expenses (winning bets, staff costs, overheads, advertising etc.), just like any other bookmaker. Their line about 'using technology to manage risk' is opportunistic e.g. allowing them to pay levy at the same rate as the High St., but has a measure of truth to it. Btw, hats off to you for having an edge / playing in such a way that you can win so regularly. But you must worry about raising the golden goose's eggs so spectacularly? |
|
By:
"the principle of the pc....."
and what is the principle ? = We don't mind the occasional lucky b@stard, but a clever b@stard is a different matter! I accept they are providing you with an opportunity to make money, and they have costs etc., but is it fair to quadruple the charges for the winners. |
|
By:
You mean some winners Tell don't you?
BF maintains, and I'll believe them until it is PROVED otherwise, that they are targeting a very small group of players who have effectively found a way to rort the BF exchange system to the general detriment of the very large majority. There is no doubt that this PC net has included a few quite innocent and harmless smaller fry, which is unfortunate. I actuallyreally wish BF could find a way to protect these unfortunate few. |
|
By:
Why do the stupid of this world constantly need protecting?
|
|
By:
"There's not much of a level playing field on Betfair that can I see. Full-timers/pros with huge advantages taking on the casual punter"
Are you implying that only full timers / pros pay the pc, even if it can hit people who win as little as a £100-£200 each month  |
|
By:
FAFH, I might profess to believe everything that is in the sun, it doesn't alter the fact that the vast majority of it is made up bullsh1t.
|
|
By:
I wd approve a basic threshold of yearly winnings on bf below wh/ no accnt. attracted pc.
This wd be similar to the allowance in income tax and pitched at a level that wd clearly exempt recreational winners e.g. 5k a year. Just b/c these people have found a way to extract relatively risk-free money (I stress relatively) doesn't mean they aren't recreational--perhaps they are thinking people seeking a refuge from home life who don't like losing. Bf shd swallow the charge for them--or rejig it so it hits botters specifically or who consume huge amounts of site computing resources. |
|
By:
That sounds fair enough Askari.
I reckon the intended PC target players would certainly all be earning way in excess of 5K pa. |
|
By:
I go along with the last 2 posts. Be good pr for them to do something like that also.
|
|
By:
The usage of 'site computing resources' is tackled by having additional charges for excess transactions and/or data requests. The pc is targeted specifically at those people who otherwise would not pay enough commission relative to their profit.
I agree about the threshold btw, I don't think pc should apply to small winners. |
|
By:
I think there's something to be said for a rolling allowance, too. I'm guessing that the great majority of PC income comes from a relatively small group of payers, and even having a rolling xK annual allowance would be a pretty effective way of undoing a lot of the PR damage.
in fact even at 2K i bet it would take a hefty percentage of payers (but not income) out of the net. and basically, no one feels sorry for the big payers. |
|
By:
Someday you calimeros will get the "level playing field" you're asking for and then it will be goodnight to you Ferengi ponces.
|
|
By:
There was a lot of things to do with commission that I previously thought they didn't implement because traders and the like were getting as near as dam to a free lunch but the pc never changed anything. Why didn't they give a boost to sub markets by lumping them all together for the commission calculation?
e.g. horse racing win and place, football match odds, correct score, HT-FT etc. etc. |
|
By:
Just a thought lads, but why don't Betfair charge everyone 5% commission whether they win plenty or lose plenty. It may not go down well with the heavy hitters, but speaking for myself, I rarely go below 4%. Of course this might please the traders but at least we'd all be on the same playing field. And we are all working on a 100% (approx) overound?
No doubt there will be some objections to this idea, but peronally I would be gutted to win 10k one week and the charge kicked in and 2k goes up in smoke. |
|
By:
* Plus there would be the added bonus of no weekly decay.
|
|
By:
I take it you're fishing stewarty?
|
|
By:
Most people who are sensible can see the logic of charging a flat 5% or whatever to everyone.
|
|
By:
I take it you're not TurtlesBrain and even your fellow calimeros are sick explaining to you how ridiculous the idea is.
Heavy hitter paying 50% of his overall profits in commission objects to some traders only having to pay as little as 5% of theirs. Betfair introduce the pc which goes some way towards addressing the difference. Betfair feel sorry for the pc payers who are paying the least and ditch the pc and make it a flat 5% of profit per market for everyone. Heavy hitter, who's now facing an annual loss, thinks it's a fair cop as it's now a "level playing field". An idea that appeals only to Dermot Desmond. |
|
By:
The heavy hitters paying 50% have a certain degree of choice as to how they bet. If they wanted to lower their commission charges and become more efficent they could, by cutting back on their markets and spending time specialising in their most productive areas. Most wont do this because they know they will be making a lot less.
|
|
By:
My feeling is that given a choice of the current system or a system that charged users based on the value they put at risk or the liquidity they provided to recreational players (wh/ bf's growth has to be) most pc payers wd go for something like the current system i.e. a version of the charge.
I am not a pc payer thanks to exceptional arbing successes (or failures?) between three and five years ago. Given the choice of the current comm. and pc system or a flat 50% tax on all bf profits above 5k p.a., I wd opt for the latter. Meanwhile, pc payers seem to think that 20%, the cheapest site rate, is extortionate Feck, bundling commission on win and place market wd be an extraordinary concession to any sort of horse arber, esp. on 16 runner+ hcaps and other good ew races. It wd mean hundreds to me every week on something I do partly as a hedge. |
|
By:
Feck, I know you've a good head on your shoulders, but I'm not fishing.
What's wrong with my idea??? As for the 50% mentioned , I don't get that. (maybe I'm missing someting???) I can't see the logic in paying 5% on every bet, as opposed to paying 20% of your profits if your a sharp cookie. Like I said, It wouldn't be the first time I've got it wrong, but as previously stated, maybe I'm missing something??? |
|
By:
blank
11 Jun 11 15:41 The heavy hitters paying 50% have a certain degree of choice as to how they bet. If they wanted to lower their commission charges and become more efficent they could, by cutting back on their markets and spending time specialising in their most productive areas. Most wont do this because they know they will be making a lot less. A crucial point which I don't doubt Feck will ignore. |
|
By:
The heavy hitters paying 50% have a certain degree of choice as to how they bet. If they wanted to lower their commission charges and become more efficent they could, by cutting back on their markets and spending time specialising in their most productive areas. Most wont do this because they know they will be making a lot less.
Betfair are hardly going to change to a commission system that will give their main liquidity providers an incentive to cut their turnover to a fraction of what they supply under the current system. A crucial point that Socket to the FACE will no doubt ignore. |
|
By:
Ofc they won't.
They'd rather screw the small and medium sized players. |
|
By:
No Betfair wont do that. But the point is its not unfair that they are paying more commission than someone else.
|
|
By:
Stewarty, if I won 100K net and paid 50K commission when on 2% then, with identical stakes and wins, under 5% I'd win 100K net and pay 125K commission. Betfair would lose their main liquidity providers and the site would die, guaranteed.
|
|
By:
But the point is its not unfair that they are paying more commission than someone else.
But you still feel it's unfair that pc payers are paying less of their profits in commission than almost every other winner on the site? |
|
By:
No, they would have to change the way they operate as blank said. Which is far from impossible.
|
|
By:
They'd rather screw the small and medium sized players.
You mean like Troy who paid around 40K on his first million but was faced with being "screwed" to the tune of 200K on any future million? |
|
By:
Socket, why don't you whinging ****s change the way you operate so you can get the "great deal" most gamblers are on?
|
|
By:
No, they would have to change the way they operate as blank said. Which is far from impossible.
The commission scheme you imbeciles want would be akin to asking betfair to make trading compulsory. |
|
By:
How do you "sharp minds" manage to make a profit FFS.
|
|
By:
The fact you litter your posts with derogatory remarks when all we're doing is having a conversation is indicative of the type of person you are.
Lets pretend we are talking face to face. Change the way I operate? Why me? Do you have me down as a Ferengi Calimero? Do you have me down as somebody who complains about the charge? |
|
By:
Feck, bundling commission on win and place market wd be an extraordinary concession to any sort of horse arber, esp. on 16 runner+ hcaps and other good ew races. It wd mean hundreds to me every week on something I do partly as a hedge.
askari, a long time ago, long before the pc, bert suggested on another forum that merging the win & place markets wrt commission was being considered. |
|
By:
The fact you litter your posts with derogatory remarks when all we're doing is having a conversation is indicative of the type of person you are.
Remember this one clown? 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. Who was being derogatory about who there? You sound like one of those city trading types who's deluded himself that his earnings are in some way proportional to his ability whereas, going by your posts, you're another TurtlesBrain. Flat 5%. FFS. Surely no one's that stupid. |
|
By:
I dont feel it's unfair that pc payers pay less commission on profits than other winners. Winners paying more either aren't as good or choose to bet in a way that pays more in commission.
|
|
By:
 I knew the reason you took so long to reply was because you were desperately searching old posts. I said that because of the way you were [and continue to] be aggressive and derogatory when you reply. Constantly. Flat 5%? I'll give you as long as you want to find a post where I said I was for that. |
|
By:
In fact in the few instances I have commented on the charge directly you'll find I have defended paying it and defended Betfair for introducing it.
|
|
By:
I dont feel it's unfair that pc payers pay less commission on profits than other winners. Winners paying more either aren't as good or choose to bet in a way that pays more in commission.
Suppose commission was 1% on the lower of the backer and layer's liability (payable by both backer and layer regardless of who wins). Very few traders would be able to make a profit at all. Given such a scheme represents "a level playing field" would that mean traders weren't as good as gamblers? |
|
By:
If those were the rules a lot of traders would adapt and become gamblers. But yes, traders who couldn't win under those rules wouldn't be as good as those that could.
|