does anyone on the forum welcome the PC hike?

awesome

There is a difference between not being able to meet their costs and having a share price that has dropped 50% in no time and desperately needing to raise revenues to appease shareholders.

are there any others on here or am i the only one not paying PC?

FINE AS FROG HAIR
Date Joined: 12 Mar 07 Add contact | Send message
When: 28 Jun 11 19:57 Joined: Date Joined: 12 Mar 07 | Topic/replies: 2,631 | Blogger: FINE AS FROG HAIR's blog
I am not in the least concerned if there are shrewd punters on BF.
However I am concerned if there are punters who result in BF not being able to fund their site costs adequately.
In the long run, those punters, if not controlled in some form or manner, would destroy the BF site.

...............................................................

The punters that market make are the most crucial punters on Betfair.  They don't market make markets for the fun of it and casual punters money doesn't come remotely close to offering a market and without them there is no Betfair.  The Swedish firm Betting Promotions and their ilk (who I believe coincidentally pay just over or approx. 40% in commission) use a derivative based model to price up a huge swathe of football markets.  (I'd guestimate provide 80-90% of the liquidity in the correct score market.)  They are crucial to the success of Betfair despite the fact they win money and are possibly Betfairs' most important customer if Betfair is to continue as a p2p platform without seeding.

The problem is although football is a hugely important market, the markets they price up have large turnover and are easier to price up than any other because they are priced up using derivatives from already established market prices.  Further down the food chain (such as horse racing) markets require more expertise and less automation in order to price up to a stage where the market can get off the ground.  The people that do so aren't costing Betfair money, they are making Betfair money.  The new pricing structure prices those people out who have reached the threshold where new charges of 41%-72% NET apply as the time and effort involved in forming the market is not worth their while.  Further the 41-72% band is even harsher since there are no rebates.  Will new punters facing charges of 3% to 25% step in and offer a weaker version of the market?  They wont be able to price it so competitively as they wont have the same expertise.  They won't be able to provide the same liquidity as they haven't got the same funds.  Betfair will lose direct business and indirect business.

I'm sure the new charge has been handily positioned so the Swedish mob and any other market makers of similar ilk are most likely to be not paying it.

This is also another kick in the nuts as Dstyle says for people who have been here longer.  I'm a long way off being affected by the new 250k lifetime threshold but would be fuming if betting which I was doing a few years ago is now to count against me.

It was bad enough for long termers like myself who have been here almost since the start when the PC calc went to lifetime.  Of course that helped a few out who lost in the early days, but personally I was not happy as I was using up an allowance that hadn't even been created in those days.

So the 250K limit is the same.  Many on here will have used that up, unaware it would ever cause them any problems.  Retrospectively applying this 250k limit just does not seem fair.

one thing I think is definitely unfair and meanminded is that it particularly hits those who've been here longest. who are exactly the people whose early activity was key to the success of the exchange. without the early adopters they'd have withered and died.

if BF had any class they'd have discounted all profitable activity before eg 2004 in the calculations. and i say that having joined in 2006, so it's not pocket talk.

one thing I think is definitely unfair and meanminded is that it particularly hits those who've been here longest. who are exactly the people whose early activity was key to the success of the exchange. without the early adopters they'd have withered and died.

It's like discovering your long-term partner doesn't want you any more...

Froggy in his usual positon of his tounge up betfair's arse, literally defending anything and everything they do, has this ever happened before

You probably believe that total bullshit pr crap they spout as well

thought you "welcomed" it lad?

In which markets do you market make, pxb?

so you said you welcomed it then called it an ill wind

make your mind up man

FAFH...maybe they have, maybe they haven't.  The decision has been made very hastily it seems and could well be a panic measure in response to falling turnover, worsening market conditions abroad and a falling share price.

I think its a mistake and they are stuffed if a competitor from the Far East emerges.  As an exchange which is a ntural monopoly you must be the price maker, not the price taker or you become a niche player.  They are placing themselves as massively more unattractive to the price makers.  It could be fatal for the company long term.

* meant price taker vs price taker of course.  Too much red wine sorry.

Bottom_of_the_League
28 Jun 11 19:58
Joined:
13 May 10
| Topic/replies: 1,689 | Blogger: Bottom_of_the_League's blog
There is a difference between not being able to meet their costs and having a share price that has dropped 50% in no time and desperately needing to raise revenues to appease shareholders.


Public shareholders will have little sway, they only sold 15.2% of the company, ffs

vep, I can understand why some traders/mms will get more competition, because I forsee there will be in some markets.

I don't want to say more, because it will give away too much. sorry.

pxb do you pay PC?

do most people on this thread/betfair pay it too?

I think there's more pc to be avoided than you may think pxb. I will have to turn over silly money pre-off to subsidise my in running stuff. Obviously I'll try and obviously it will make it more difficult for other people to profit in those markets (because I can afford to lose and still be net better off)

I agree with that Bayes.
I can readily see reasonably acceptable ways in bringing total charges up to the 20 % threshhold, but over that it becomes virtually impossible to mitigate in full ( for me that is ).