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:
my crime is having a fun bet it too much for me [smiley:crazy]
tillions of pounds is elsewhere  |
|
By:
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.
----------------- I remember that one. I remember thinking it was pretty much bang on - except I'd have gone late 50s. Let's suppose I suffer from agoraphobia and the above is spot on. The idea that this would mean you lot were in some way less shafted by my arguments is bizarre to say the least. It's also hilarious to say I have "no argument" when this is the standard of opposition that attempts to counter my non existent argument. As is normal on the torched villagers forum, you wait all day for a pr1ck to come along and then 3 come at once. Why don't you all give us a laugh and (for the first time ever) some one put up an argument to counter the following "non argument". 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:
I have no doubt that the pc is hitting mostly the succesful punters/value players.
Some (Eejit) might find it ironic that the pc is pushing succesful value players like myself into becoming volume traders in order to avoid the pc.  |
|
By:
yawn. the feckathon continues.
|
|
By:
Well that's my argument shot down in flames then. Do you Ferengi f@nnies ever make a post with any real content?
|
|
By:
Feck N. Eejit
11 Jun 11 17:18 Joined: 10 Jan 02 | Topic/replies: 3,940 | Blogger: Feck N. Eejit's blog 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. Feck, I see you have bad a few having a pop at you. As you know, you wont get any lip off of me. (if you don't ask, you don't learn) At the risk of getting village idiot stamped on my forehead, here goes.... HYPOTHETICALLY speaking, if I have a grand on a 9/4 winner on here every week, (just the one bet) I will make 2250 per week less commission of 5% which will give me a net profit of 2137.50p per week. Multiply this figure by 52 = £111,150. I'd be happy with that, but again, I may be missing something... |
|
By:
The all new liquidity generating Premium Charge = (GrossProfit - 5 * CommissionGenerated) / 2
just remind us all again feck, under your system at the odds of 2, how much would you have to put on to win 100 quid? |
|
By:
* 100 quid net
|
|
By:
* And given Betfair of £5850. (which I think would be better than seeing 20% of my winnings stolen from me after a certain period.)
|
|
By:
* Missed out commission there.
|
|
By:
iz, £101.
stewarty, I don't really get your point. Anyone who gets 52 9/4 winners from 52 bets would be on pc so would obviously favour a flat 5%. Even if the pc had never been introduced someone who bet only a grand a week wouldn't be far off 5% so the introduction of a flat 5% wouldn't make a lot of difference to him (save for the fact the site would be dead). Under a flat 5% the large majority of winners on 2% (i.e. the main liquidity providers) would be priced out of the game and would go elsewhere. The old system was unjust and making it unjust to the power of 10 certainly won't fix it. |
|
By:
"Under a flat 5% the large majority of winners on 2% (i.e. the main liquidity providers) would be priced out of the game and would go elsewhere"
|
|
By:
feck, 101?
|
|
By:
Feck N. Eejit
12 Jun 11 14:22 Joined: 10 Jan 02 | Topic/replies: 3,942 | Blogger: Feck N. Eejit's blog iz, £101. stewarty, I don't really get your point. Anyone who gets 52 9/4 winners from 52 bets would be on pc Feck, my point is I wouldn't be on PC, just the 5% commission. |
|
By:
stewarty, I agree a flat 5% wouldn't deter people who bet 52 winners out of 52 if that's your point but I think we already know that people who would pay pc under the current system would prefer a flat 5%.
|
|
By:
iz, yes, the default system would be backer and layer would pay 1% on the lower of the backer or layer liability.
|
|
By:
Feck, also, If Betfair went bust, (most unlikely I know, but it happened with Sporting Options) (owing me 1200 I may add) the goverment could easily bring back betting tax and we'd all be working with an overound of an average of 120%. (I know which I prefer).
|
|
By:
Feck, I was talking hypothetically re: the 52 out of 52.
|
|
By:
stewarty, correct me if I'm wrong, your argument so far is betfair should make it a flat 5% because this would suit pc payers and would ensure betfair wouldn't go bust and induce the government to bring back a 9% turnover tax?
The only thing a flat 5% charge would ensure would be that betfair would go bust. |
|
By:
Feck, I suppose my point is this, (to simplify things , on my part anyways) As a punter like myself, can you imagine yourself having a really good run and suddenly hit the PC charge. Let's say you have a really good week and win 300k. Would you not be gutted seeing 60k stolen out of your account?
Don't get me started about this leftie, right wing goverment. I'm sure the 9% has been looked at given their record so far. As you will know, the electric/gas companies were privatised to give cheaper deals if you looked around.The opposite has happened. Not every OAP has internet. As you know, Betfair has the monopoly. What would you do if Betfair introduced a 30% PC charge? |
|
By:
turtles,
I don't think I would survive an increase to 3% let alone 5% :p And there is nowhere else I could go, I would just stop. I think the commission discount system exists not so much to encourage people to play more but to enable high-volume/small-margin systems to operate. |
|
By:
stewarty b
12 Jun 11 15:34 Joined: 02 Aug 02 | Topic/replies: 2,024 | Blogger: stewarty b's blog Feck, I suppose my point is this, (to simplify things , on my part anyways) As a punter like myself, can you imagine yourself having a really good run and suddenly hit the PC charge. Let's say you have a really good week and win 300k. Would you not be gutted seeing 60k stolen out of your account? No, he would be pleased that he had had a really good week and won 240k. |
|
By:
Your're putting words in Feck's mouth cat. I'm sure Feck would have enjoyed the 300k and 5% commission imho.
|
|
By:
I don't think I would survive an increase to 3% let alone 5% :p
And there is nowhere else I could go, I would just stop. I think the commission discount system exists not so much to encourage people to play more but to enable high-volume/small-margin systems to operate. Why wouldn't you just put up bets a tick or two lower? If the high-volume/small-margin operators are the real liquidity providers you would still be matched. |
|
By:
Now we are getting the bizarre argument that should it change to a fair flat rate 5% across the board which applies to everyone loads of people would leave, yet apparently there is no possibility that they could adapt accordingly
 Yet pc tax players should just stop moaning despite they are getting treated differently to everyone else |
|
By:
All people are equal but some are more equal than others ;)
|
|
By:
The irony of those who defend the PC the loudest are ready to start squealing if there is any change to the commisssion structure.
|
|
By:
I didn't say I would squeal, I said I would stop.
|
|
By:
turtleshead
12 Jun 11 18:03 Joined: 01 Jan 05 | Topic/replies: 10,470 | Blogger: turtleshead's blog Now we are getting the bizarre argument that should it change to a fair flat rate 5% across the board which applies to everyone loads of people would leave, yet apparently there is no possibility that they could adapt accordingly I don't think there is, should I carry on and lose money? |
|
By:
In actual fact the market dynamics would change so much that it would be worth keeping it all going to see what happened. But I wouldn't leave it all going losing money, sorry.
|
|
By:
I'm off lads. Where's Feck when you need him?
|
|
By:
catfloppo, are you saying that whatever the strategy you or other 2%ers employ is, it couldn't be changed at all if the change I mentioned occurred?
And even if it did mean a few left, would that be a disaster for those that were left? Sorry if that sounds harsh...but you know the saying "adapt or die" |
|
By:
I wouldn't bother trying to adapt and I'm fairly certain most of what I do would need to be culled
|
|
By:
Why do poker winners on Betfair not get charged a Premium Tax ?
|
|
By:
Stewarty b : HYPOTHETICALLY speaking, if I have a grand on a 9/4 winner on here every week, (just the one bet) I will make 2250 per week less commission of 5% which will give me a net profit of 2137.50p per week. Multiply this figure by 52 = £111,150.
I'd be happy with that, but again, I may be missing something... Yes Stewarty you are missing something, and that is the absolute fact that you cannot win one bet a week at 9/4. In reality you will do well to back at 9/4 (3.25) on true chances of 2/1 (3.0) once a week if you believe you have around an 8% edge over the market, which will mean that you'll win one bet at 3.25 for every two that you lose, resulting in a profit of £2250 minus losses of £2000, every three bets. At a flat rate of 5% you will pay £112.50 in commission, leaving you with an overall profit of £137.50, so that is to say as a gambler with an 8% edge on a flat rate of 5% commission you will in effect be paying 45% commission, which is more than premium charge payers will be paying. If you paid commission at 2% you would be paying 20% overall on your profit, and would possibly incur a small premium charge payment which would still equate to a lot less than 45%. |
|
By:
Trevh, you are confusing gross and net profit.
A pc payer will pay 80% of their gross profits. Far more than the 45% in your example. |
|
By:
Feck, I would like to know why these 2% winners providing liquidity wouldn't be able to adjust their odds to compensate for a commission increase. If they really are providing liquidity surely they would and they would still be matched because the vast majority of losing/break even gamblers are'nt price sensitive, what am I missing?
|
|
By:
The fact that it would increase the gap that traders exploit and therefore the number of traders. Replacing the existing 2% winners with 5% traders might seem like a good plan except for the fact that, as we all know, traders pay a much smaller percentage of their profit back to betfair, even after pc has been applied.
|
|
By:
catflappo's correct apart from the fact the existing 2%ers would no longer be putting up the bets that guide the parasites. I didn't even join betfair till they brought in the sliding scale.
People who think betfair will hit the main liquidity providers with a 150% rise so that those already paying the lowest rates of commission on profit can pay up to 80% less than they do now are seriously deluded. |
|
By:
Indeed Feck, I would almost completely stop, as I have stated above. Luckily, as you say, it is all hypothetical.
|