For most of us the need for rebates will very likely increase as we'll be facing a charge we have no backup for.
As an example, I've paid lifetime generated of 25% so will have to pay pc's of 40%. Let's say in the first week I show a profit of 100K but only pay 20K normal commission in the process. I'll then be charged 20K pc's. The next week I lose 100K. Compare this with me losing 100K the first week and then winning 100K the following week. In this case I escape the 20K premium charge. Lunacy. As I was previously only generating 25% it could be argued that I'll almost certainly pay pc's in the future and that 20K will be offset against them. That's fair enough but that doesn't apply to anyone who's already generated near 40%.
I am being hit with these new charges ( or will be if I choose to continue). I am currently at 29%, and have never paid any premium charge.
I have gambled at Betfair for many years, but its only in the last 7-8 months that my commision paid has ever been lower than 40%. Which is due to a great run I have had. And I am therefore also fairly certain that if I were to continue gambling here then I at some point would have returned to a level above 40% ( most likely even substantially above). But these new charges forces me to quit completely.
I am being hit with these new charges ( or will be if I choose to continue). I am currently at 29%, and have never paid any premium charge. I have gambled at Betfair for many years, but its only in the last 7-8 months that my commision paid has ever
Pareto You're still making a profit with them Why quit then? Only if you can do better elsewhere ?. Surely not on principle.? After all any profit is worth getting, assuming the risk and time factors are still in proprtion.
ParetoYou're still making a profit with themWhy quit then?Only if you can do better elsewhere ?.Surely not on principle.?After all any profit is worth getting, assuming the risk and time factors are still in proprtion.
I am not a trader, but a normal gambler ( I do sometimes trade out, but not normally). My last bet was laying DK U17 vs Australia U17.
Why would I make such a bet in the future, when I know if I win I have to pay 40% in premium charge. Why not just bet Australia +½ at pinnacle, sbobet etc at a slightly worse price?
@Fine As Frog HairI am not a trader, but a normal gambler ( I do sometimes trade out, but not normally). My last bet was laying DK U17 vs Australia U17. Why would I make such a bet in the future, when I know if I win I have to pay 40% in premium char
Pareto You can't really look at the charges on a one off bet basis. If you bet just normally and recreationally, you'll ending up paying more than 40% of your gross profit in " charges". Bet at pinnacle etc and add up the true costs over a period of time. You'll be surprised at what they come out at as a percentage of " gross profit ".
ParetoYou can't really look at the charges on a one off bet basis.If you bet just normally and recreationally, you'll ending up paying more than 40% of your gross profit in " charges".Bet at pinnacle etc and add up the true costs over a period of tim
Well, when they charge it each week, then I certainly can.
What do you mean if I bet normally and recreationally I will end up paying more than 40%? Remember as I said one year ago, I was no where near 40%. I was probably at 70-80%. But due to a great run I am now at 29%. You do understand the concept of variance right? When Betfair has several thousand active users, then some of them are going to have a great run and get into "premium charge trouble" even though their betting pattern doesnt suggest it would be permanent.
@ Fine as Frog hairWell, when they charge it each week, then I certainly can.What do you mean if I bet normally and recreationally I will end up paying more than 40%? Remember as I said one year ago, I was no where near 40%. I was probably at 70-80%.
FINE AS FROG HAIR, the answer is in the opening post. If we could rely on consistent winnings every week then I'm sure many of us would decide to carry on @ 40%. However with the variance involved in betting, and the absence of rebates, it makes long-run betting unprofitable.
FINE AS FROG HAIR, the answer is in the opening post. If we could rely on consistent winnings every week then I'm sure many of us would decide to carry on @ 40%. However with the variance involved in betting, and the absence of rebates, it makes lo
Been there and done that, when it went up to 20%. 40% is a bridge too far in my opinion, I just don't see how you can be so confident in such a small edge. Will probably be a lot of boy who try something like that and end up going bust as a result.
Been there and done that, when it went up to 20%. 40% is a bridge too far in my opinion, I just don't see how you can be so confident in such a small edge. Will probably be a lot of boy who try something like that and end up going bust as a result.
I agree you have to understand exactly how your edge is created, and be playing in mkts where you can increase your volumes. In football you certainly can to a large extent.
I agree you have to understand exactly how your edge is created, and be playing in mkts where you can increase your volumes. In football you certainly can to a large extent.