General Betting
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 457 comments are related to the topic:
New PC charges
New PC charges
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 457
|
By:
allinadayswork
Date Joined: 06 May 10 Add contact | Send message When: 30 Jun 11 00:12 Joined: Date Joined: 06 May 10 | Topic/replies: 2,075 | Blogger: allinadayswork's blog This is what comes of putting too many eggs in one basket, I've always spread my betting around to avoid being hung, drawn and quartered by any one operator, being adaptable and moving around is the way forward. --------- all well and good, but if you're a trader there is only one basket. that's why they've been able to do this. |
|
By:
There are other baskets but they are not as good.
|
|
By:
I don't think "not as good" does it justice.
|
|
By:
In my case the eggs fell straight through the bottom
|
|
By:
catfloppo, when I switched to ****, a bot latched onto my activity one day and cut me out of every market. It applied a fixed percentage rise to my bets too which meant that whatever I put in, it would put in exactly the same plus x% where x was fixed. I was doing the same as you, undercutting, trying to form a better margin than 140% which was the norm. The bot went away for a short time and then re-apeared but I already had access to another channel by then. I still don't know if the original account was 'tagged' in some way or just a very annoying bot which was refreshing the market 1000 times a second. The 'cover bets' always appeared instantly.
p.s. catfloppo 29 Jun 11 19:05 At least betfair, to the best of my knowledge, set the same rules for everyone. catfloppo 29 Jun 11 13:23 I was told that they had no preferential treatment, although that was a while ago. You gotta laugh. Why exactly would they tell you anything? |
|
By:
That kind of activity has been fixed on here by the implementation of the transaction charge, I used to get the same thing when I played manually on **** years ago on f1. The bots then would also be looking at betfair prices because as you forced them up they would retreat again as they got within a few ticks of the prices here.
I asked about the 'deal' because I was interested in whether there were options available to me. I was told no, but as I said, that was a few years ago. |
|
By:
I have three letters for everyone:
A G M Everyone on here who's disgusted by these changes - buy some shares, get along to the AGM, and raise HELL. |
|
By:
Can you go to the AGM if you've shorted them?
 |
|
By:
Hopefully someone here can help me. I don't look at horse racing markets on a daily basis but I've been using the site long enough to have used them pretty often. Was there much less liquidity in the markets today than usual? Or was I imagining it?
|
|
By:
cricket runlines seemed well down as was top bats.
 |
|
By:
Can you go to the AGM if you've shorted them?
LOL |
|
By:
Can anybody affected please confirm that the "terms.betfair.com" site still shows you the detail? Can't seem to access it anymore (maybe they're just recalculating it including the latest week).
|
|
By:
Somebody on here suggested that a strategy of making more marginal bets, thus increasing the volatility would decrease the premimum charge. I don't think this is the case. With a premium charge of 40%, the actual charge paid can be unlimited upwards, even for someone who perhaps makes only 40k a year, so that they fall within the 250k lifetime profit.
For example, let us say that your profits for four weeks, before commission, are as follows: Week Profit 1 11377.71 2 9457.90 3 -6087.39 4 -9608.68 5 4448.32 So, you have made £9587.86 in total on the five-weeks, but the premium charge is assessed on the lifetime high, so you pay £8334.24. And after four weeks you were net negative. It is quite possible to have premium charge rates of 4000%; I supposed you can always borrow from wonga.com or quickquid.co.uk to pay it! |
|
By:
Foxy, do you know anyone with this type of betting pattern that is in premium charge territory? People keep coming up with hypothetical examples that look awful but in reality don't/can't actually happen.
|
|
By:
If someone can do some modelling, then I think the key number is standard deviation/average win (per week)
Mine is about 2.2, using slightly old data. I believe that means I have a losing week about 32% of the time, though I've done that quickly and it's early. |
|
By:
yes, catfloppo, that was taken from my record, randomly picked, and I will pay premium charge at 40% if I decide to continue. My losing week percentage is around 29% and as Lori says the key figure is the standard deviation of the results each week. What seems wrong is that one gets no refund of premium charge when you lose during a week, even though the premium charge paid is then a much higher percentage of profits.
On my simulation, around 2% of the time I will have paid more total premium charge than total profits earned, taking week 1 as the 18th July 2011 - in other words premium charges greater than 100%. I think Edward Thorp said that skilful blackjack players seem to be losing 99% of the time, in that they are below their last high. So, the 40% is a minimum, but has no upper limit. |
|
By:
catfloppo, there were a with that kind of betting patterns caught when the threshold was 20 %.
That number could possibly be multipled by ten when the threshold is raised to 40 % as long as we talk of people who meets the others criterias for paying the 40 - 60 % charge, |
|
By:
If you repeat those 5 weeks over and over what happens?
|
|
By:
I know Eddie, and I am personally in favour of a rebate system that would mean the rate is pegged. But it's still the case that if you have a losing week it reduces the amount of pc that you pay in the future so sometimes these snapshots are unrepresentative. I'm interested that foxy is using real data though, I'm tired of seeing made up examples.
|
|
By:
After 40 weeks, you are down to 45.8% premium charge, and it does, of course, close in on 40%. That is because you are having no standard deviation of the 5 week batches either.
2% of the time I will have paid more than 80% premium charge over a 40 week period. |
|
By:
So it does even out somewhere around 40%? That's how I understood it.
|
|
By:
That's only assuming your edge doesn't erode.
You will almost always have paid more than you should (The blackjack analogy about almost never being at your high point applies) |
|
By:
It will still settle even then, won't it? With lower profits obviously.
|
|
By:
No, if you do more lower margin trades, then the standard deviation of your week's results will go up, and the chance of you paying much more than 40% will rise. And if you have a higher strike rate, then the PC will inch up from 40% to 60%. Somebody who aims to trade out at a profit in every market might only pay an average of 2-3% commission. They will then pay 60% of their profits as PC, although they will always be at this 60%. Somebody with high volatility will have PC's fluctuating wildly between 40% and 100%. It will only be at 40% when your cumulative profits before PC are at a new high.
|
|
By:
I understand that there is an (unfortunate and unneccesary) asymmetry in the treatment of winning and losing weeks that will cause the actual amount paid in pc to settle, long term, at some point above the user's designated base rate. But not much above if my aged and now hurting brain is able to visualise this correctly.
|
|
By:
*unnecessary
|
|
By:
If your edge erodes to the point where your long term number is over 40%, then every bit of PC you paid would be too much.
While you may dismiss that as another unlikely scenario, I'd argue that edges are eroded all the time on here and it's actually a very likely scenario. |
|
By:
Once your long term number is above 40 you won't pay any.
I agree about eroding edges, mine have been worn smooth  |
|
By:
Sorry I've been misunderstanding you.
I'm meaning that you can be a break even player and have paid PC in the past. |
|
By:
Yeah, I can see that
|
|
By:
And important point that is easy to miss is that the charge is not retrospective. It doesn't matter what you betting activity was in the past, it only matters in the future.
"For the purposes of introducing a change to the Premium Charge rate that applies to your betting, we will assume that you have always incurred the Premium Charge at the prevailing rate. For example, if the Premium Charge rate applicable to your betting is now set at 40%, we will assume that you have always paid Premium Charges at 40%. This will ensure that you are considered to have generated total charges equal to at least 40% of lifetime gross profits at the point that the new rate becomes effective." |
|
By:
Yes but also the new charge is based on lifetime profit and the second part, the increase to 50, 60% is on lifetime commission generated which is entirely retrospective.
Is it fair that a new customer can win at a much faster rate than a long standing one and pay no premium charge, at least until they hit the 250k limit. And further to that they now know that it is in their interest to pursue strategies to increase their commission paid from the outset. How could someone have known that 10 years ago? |
|
By:
The commission system isn't fair and never has been. With pc it is fairer because there is less disparity between the amounts of commission that is paid. It does put existing successful players at a disadvantage but that also makes it exciting for new users.
|
|
By:
Why is it exciting for new players to know that winners with a good strike rate pay more to Betfair than they used to and that themselves will have to pay a large chunk of their winnings to Betfair if they become successful ?
|
|
By:
I don't know really, I just imagine if I was starting out now the prospect of having a small advantage over established players would inspire me and I would look forward to joining them one day 250k richer.
|
|
By:
I don't think most will see it that way, people don't go into this game to win a few thousand, they go into it to win millions. If they're going to get cut down after years of work takes them to 250k (and this number seems likely to come down) they're just not going to take the game up. IMO of course.
|
|
By:
But new players have no advantage in the betting !
They just pay a smaller commission on their winnings. |
|
By:
The opening thread on the topic for Templeton.
|
|
By:
Thanks frames, I must have found this thread just moments before you brought it to the top for me.
|
|
By:
the fact that betduck can survive and prosper currently with 2.5 accross the board charge and similar promotions shows that betfair must be in real trouble at the moment to purge the pockets and accounts of there most sucessful clients.
instead of betfair customers coming under the spotlight and branded incorectly by small minded folk lets take a close look at betfairs current business management of what is a working exchange business model. 1.....betfair has invested heavily in overseas markets and come unstuck with many goverments and orginisations, this has been costly and this cost must be paid from the assets of the average betfair punter. 2.....betfair has spent far too much money in advertising, even at times when they didnt need too as they were the only exchange company of any worth trading, this must be paid from the assets of the average betfair puter. 3.....betfair has spent far too much money in competion with high street bookmakers and law suits. this has been regretable and most betfair punters have always sided with betfair as it is a radical change away from the rackteering bookmakers restrictive practices. 4.....betfair has had too spend fortunes upgrading its hq and recently moving it to malta which should of helped them compete more fairly with the big bookmakers who already operate some of there services from the same location. 5.....betfair has had too find money too pay for all the above and other costs from private backers, 1 of which bought a huge share in the company and has even tried in vain too float on the stock market to raise more capital. with all the above movements and costs in betfair operations it is no wonder that now we find that the premium charge has juped from a 20% level to what is effectively a 60% rate as they now need to exploit there revenus which account holders are fair game and the bigger they are the more they will take off them too feed there army of investores, staff, costs etc, etc, etc betfairs problems are classic too many businesses in there formative years and its always the same formula, investment over returns, in my view they need to make some radical changes to there infra-structure in terms of expenses and revilalise there relationship with the average betfair punter before they become a victim of there own sucess |